Discussion: View Thread

Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

  • 1.  Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-05-2022 10:55 AM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 05-09-2022 11:23 AM

    Thank you Debra for writing about this topic in this related thread! This has been a pet peeve of mine for years and I understand your frustration with ASCE. I have to disagree with you on the statement "There are valid arguments supporting both sides of the climate change...". There are no proven or overwhelmingly convincing arguments. Now there are many companies that have jumped on this bandwagon including the one I work for. Thanks to the age of technology, we now have suppression, disinformation and censorship that have helped this cause to grow.

    I work in the Power Generation Industry and the company I work for has become a big supporter of the green movement otherwise known as clean energy. I'm all for protecting our environment, but when things like the Winter Storm of 2021 in Texas occur, that should be a huge red flag suggesting that this direction is not good, or needs some major steering adjustment. Even with these red flag events occurring, the blindness of this movement ensures a path of driving off a cliff, like Texas and California did.

    The story is told of a boy walking to school one morning and he found a kitten. He picked it up and took it to school. During "Show and Tell" the boy showed the class the kitten. Another boy asked, "Is it a boy or a girl?" The teacher didn't want to go down that rabbit hole, but another boy quickly offered the idea of voting on it to determine what the gender of the kitten was. If the kitten was a female, even if all the votes were in favor of it being a male, this would not change the truth of it being a female kitten. 

    The same is true with man-caused climate change, no matter how many government officials, media and companies claim it's true doesn't make it true!

    Kirk Uchytil S.E.
    Taylor, AZ



    ------------------------------
    Kirk Uchytil
    Structural Engineer
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-05-2022 11:00 AM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 05-09-2022 11:18 AM

    Thank you Debra for writing about this topic in this related thread! I agree with you. Every time I see a reference to man-made global warming or climate change I feel sad that ASCE perpetuates the unsupportive narrative. 
    Kenneth Kauffman P.E. LMASCE, Indiana



    ------------------------------
    Kenneth Kauffman P.E., M.ASCE
    P E
    Marion IN
    ------------------------------



  • 3.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-06-2022 09:33 AM
    I remember when the ASCE report was released on the collapse of the World Trade Center. By then, there already was an established conspiracy theory that "jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams." There were even people that referred to themselves as Structural Engineers saying that the only way the towers could be destroyed was by planned detonation. Of course, the ASCE report said otherwise. You could probably say that ASCE was taking sides because it ignored this other opinion. Some people could also make the argument that ASCE was being political by maintaining the fact-based narrative of the jets causing the collapse. I would argue that ASCE would be political if it took into account both arguments.

    ------------------------------
    Yance Marti P.E., M.ASCE
    Civil Engineer IV
    City of Milwaukee
    Milwaukee WI
    ------------------------------



  • 4.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-09-2022 08:04 AM
    One of the problems in WTC tower collapse was that the mechanism of it was never demonstrated.
    NIST acted as if they did not how to do it.
    Somehow, in 2008 they managed it for WTC-7.
    By using right software and right specialists.

    Best
    Gregory from Oz

    ------------------------------
    Dr Gregory Szuladzinski
    Director
    Analytical Service Co
    Northbridge, NSW, Australia
    ------------------------------



  • 5.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-16-2022 11:16 AM
    Ahh   but global warming isn't the same as the collapse of the World Trade Center.

    ------------------------------
    Wayne Huber
    Civil Eng
    Berkley CA
    ------------------------------



  • 6.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-23-2022 11:07 AM
    Climate processes occur over much longer periods of time than a few hundred years.  We are not really able to evaluate effects of any of man's activities within the literally SHORT timeframe that we have records.  To understand "climates" go to any library and pick up a few textbooks on paleoclimatology.  Cycles of climate occur, with some significant ones occurring over substantially long periods (literal ice ages), encompassed within those long cyclic periods by shorter-term cycling of beneficial/adverse/stable periods.  For example, Paleogeomorphologists have solidly documented hundred-year-plus long EDS cycles of erosion, deposition and stability in the morphology of earth's surface.

    ------------------------------
    Gary Lewis Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE
    Owner
    Pine Valley Hydraulic Engineering, LLC
    Evergreen CO
    ------------------------------



  • 7.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-23-2022 12:38 PM
    Gary: You really need to read the IPCC reports. The world-class climatologists (including paleo) who wrote them and hundreds of peer reviewed paper authors are aware of the long-term climate record's uses and limitations. If you have contradictory evidence, you should publish it in a peer-reviewed journal.

    ------------------------------
    William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., D.CE, D.NE, F.ASCE
    ENGINEER
    Columbus MS
    ------------------------------



  • 8.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-24-2022 10:19 AM
    If only the peer review process weren't poisoned by politics!  I have read the IPCC reports and am convinced this is a house of cards.

    ------------------------------
    Peter Klevberg P.E., M.ASCE
    Project Manager
    Thomas Dean & Hoskins Inc
    Great Falls MT
    ------------------------------



  • 9.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-24-2022 03:48 PM
    I agree that the peer review process is flawed; however, those flaws do not extend to being poisoned by politics. IMO, public discourse on this subject, including this thread, is poisoned by partisan politics. People with political biases suffer from confirmation bias and their comments reflect that. If you have specific complaints about peer reviewed papers, please make them to the appropriate journal editors. I'm sure they will be pleased to get your advice.

    ------------------------------
    William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., D.CE, D.NE, F.ASCE
    ENGINEER
    Columbus MS
    ------------------------------



  • 10.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-08-2022 10:55 AM

    I for one think the debate on climate change is long over. There is clear evidence of systemic change to the earth's climate and there is clear evidence that it is related to human activity.  I also applaud ASCE for taking a clear stand, i.e. Policy statement 360 - Climate change | ASCE. Furthermore, when I read the policy, I see statements that notwithstanding the impetus that make good sense and are good for the civil engineering profession.

    Re the 2021 Texas winter storm it is convenient to blame the renewable energy generators when in fact the real problem was the thermal energy generators. The thermal energy generators suffered from a lack of winterization and lack of access to fuel source, notably gas, also because of lack of winterization.



    ------------------------------
    Mitch Winkler P.E., M.ASCE
    Houston, TX
    ------------------------------



  • 11.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-09-2022 07:57 AM
    The whole set of electrical grids in the US (and elsewhere) desperately needs to be modernized. We civils can play a big role in improving the grid transmission lines, their reliability, and EV charging infrastructure.   We are now getting electricity from so many places that are not big, conventional thermal energy power stations (Ford Lightning/150's, the wind farms in IA and elsewhere); the system must be improved soon to take in power rather than just sending it out to customers. 

    I hope that more civil engineers will accept the evidence presented in Policy Statement 360 because it is an important step as we continue to build infrastructure and buildings with 50-100 year life spans.

    ------------------------------
    Sarah Simon P.E., ENV SP, M.ASCE
    Founding Partner
    Ipswich MA
    ------------------------------



  • 12.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-13-2022 07:54 AM
    Having been involved in the electric transmission line permitting process in Iowa, can say that getting new electric infrastructure build can be a daunting task, especially obtaining the needed right-of-way.  And not just in Iowa.

    ------------------------------
    Donald Stursma P.E., M.ASCE
    Manager
    Pella IA
    ------------------------------



  • 13.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-13-2022 10:47 AM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 05-13-2022 10:47 AM
    Climate is always changing, always has, always will, so the question is really the cost-benefit analysis of resilience. To that extent, I go along with 360.
    >>> Donald Stursma via ASCE Collaborate <Mail@...> 5/13/2022 5:56 AM >>>


  • 14.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-16-2022 11:09 AM
    The electric grid is doing just fine, it is well regulated, and heavily monitored.  Thousands of dedicated professionals work every minute of every day making it so, and ensuring it is being upgraded, just like they have since the 1930s.  There is not some looming problem begging the involvement of people-in-charge.  Big, conventional thermal power stations are here to stay, and more are being built every year. At least, until someone invents reliable, renewable powered heating for the hundreds of millions of people living where the natural climate is too cold to survive without it.  People can't keep from freezing in January using a pickup truck battery charged last July. There are already many people working daily to solve all these problems, and they're not all civil engineers, and these problems will continue to be solved, with or without politicians grandstanding about this and that program they want to tax us for.

    ------------------------------
    Dudley McFadden P.E., D.WRE, M.ASCE
    Principal Civil Engineer
    Roseville CA
    ------------------------------



  • 15.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-16-2022 12:15 PM
    Do not disagree that large central generation will still be needed for the foreseeable future, or that the grid is being well operated.  But not sure it is doing fine.  New and more widely distributed alternative energy sources (eg wind, solar) are needing new lines to transport their production, and where it is injected into the larger grid system totally change the power flow distribution in a system designed for a few centralized nodes.  More lines and/or line upgrades are needed to reconfigure the grid to accomodate the new reality, but that's not easily done.  Am aware of at least one major project killed by fierce landowner opposition.

    ------------------------------
    Donald Stursma P.E., M.ASCE
    Manager
    Pella IA
    ------------------------------



  • 16.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-03-2022 10:15 AM
    I have no knowledge of the overall electrical grid but IMO the Texas grid is poorly managed and is definitely not ready for climate variability. IN 2019 we had multi-day blackouts and rolling shutdowns because of cold weather. This spring the grid managers have warned us that the unusual heat wave may cause blackouts before summer even begins. The Texas grid is unique because our governor and legislature made it so.

    ------------------------------
    William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., D.CE, D.NE, F.ASCE
    ENGINEER
    Columbus MS
    ------------------------------



  • 17.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-09-2022 11:14 AM
    Mitch Winkler:
    Sit down and do a table.
    First show "man made global warming" and the amount of temperature change associated with that phenomenon, also include the associated time period.
    Next, list the amount of warming and the period associated with El Nino.
    Then do La Nina.
    Then do the seasonal temperature differences associated with the solstices and the tilt of the earth, i.e. June 21 and Dec 21.
    Then of your choice include past warming and cooling events over the centuries.
    What you will find is that "man made global warming" is insignificant when compared to what the sun can do.  Make a note that "man made global warming" is only a theory.
    And, we have not even talked about the variation in orbital proximity to the sun. This last causation is similar to the axial tilt of the earth which causes seasons.
    Kirk Uchytil's example of climate change points up to how people have a hard time dealing with facts that are plainly in front of them.

    ------------------------------
    Michael Mills P.E., S.E., M.ASCE
    Structural Engineer
    Tulsa OK
    ------------------------------



  • 18.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-16-2022 11:22 AM
    Michael:
    You are correct in your reasoning. Unfortunately, people conflate issues. Earth's exposure to solar is the main reason we have climate change.  The climate is warming, no doubt. It just is inconvenient for people. Oceans are rising. We have known for over 125 years. Coastal areas will flood. Permafrost will thaw, oceans will warm, freshwater will diminish, and the global population is racing to 10 B. We all know this.
    The key to reducing the impact on the human population is solar radiation on the Earth. Countries will never ever agree on working together on a comprehensive solution. There is a solution, that fixes the issue on a global basis based on today's available technology. However, the politicians are not interested. They are interested in spending 100's trillions instead of spending 30 to 50 trillion. So too much talk and snail pace action. Time does not pause.

    ------------------------------
    Vito Rotondi, (Retired)
    Arch. S.E. P.E. M ASCE
    Westmont Illinois
    ------------------------------



  • 19.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-09-2022 11:15 AM
    Did you give this thread the title "Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone"? 
    If so, I think you are confusing people's perspectives with evidence about conditions on earth.  We civils cannot, and should not, promote the idea that protecting our environment and ecosystems is "political" or a matter for "debate."  I agree that solutions and alternatives should be debated.  But it is counterproductive for civil engineers to put much effort into solving market, economic, or truly political issues when we are supposed to be the ones responsible for turning ideas into reality and creating helpful things for our US (or global) society that never existed before.

    ------------------------------
    Sarah Simon P.E., ENV SP, M.ASCE
    Founding Partner
    Ipswich MA
    ------------------------------



  • 20.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-09-2022 04:08 PM
    I agree Mitchell. We don't have to rely on any news media sources just scientific studies that all clearly illustrate the earth's temperature has been rising for years. I will use the upper Midwest where I grew up as practical, real life example. When I was I kid delivering newspapers in the 70's, we would routinely see a week's forecast where the temperature never exceeded 0, and snow was consistently on the ground from early November until Easter. I even remember wind chills in the -60 to -70 degree range in southeast WI.  I remember the snow piling so high that we could literally walk up the plowed snow banks 40 or 50' high and sled down which was awesome! Now, I'll call my mother in December and it's 50 degrees in Milwaukee with no snow on the ground which was unheard of when I was kid.

    ------------------------------
    Paul Gilliam P.E., M.ASCE
    Senior Project Manager/Associate
    SAIN ASSOCIATES
    BIRMINGHAM AL
    ------------------------------



  • 21.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-16-2022 11:15 AM
    Good.   Global warming then does have some positive effects.

    ------------------------------
    Wayne Huber
    Civil Eng
    Berkley CA
    ------------------------------



  • 22.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-26-2022 11:11 AM
    A fact that no climate scientist would challenge. To state the obvious, the problem climate scientists--and obviously ASCE--have with climate change is that the losers will easily outnumber the winners in quantity and magnitude. Do you accept that global warming has many harmful implications?

    ------------------------------
    Tsee Lee, A.M.ASCE
    General Services Administration
    New York, NY
    ------------------------------



  • 23.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-31-2022 08:01 AM
    Paul Gilliam:
    I remember in Oklahoma, about 1979 & 1980, that we had an outstanding summer, also winter.  We had about 30 days of below freezing weather, which I had never seen before.  Also, we had a summer with over 40 days at over 100°F. 
    Now you can pick which one you want to focus on.

    ------------------------------
    Michael Mills P.E., S.E., M.ASCE
    Structural Engineer
    Tulsa OK
    ------------------------------



  • 24.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-12-2022 07:25 PM
    Mitch is correct. Several thousand of the best climate scientists in the world have examined all the evidence suggested by the naysayers (and much more) and reached solid, defensible conclusions that human-induced climate change is real and is happening now. If anyone want to examine the real evidence, there are exhaustive reports available at https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/. Climate change is not politics, it is science.

    ------------------------------
    William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., D.CE, D.NE, F.ASCE
    ENGINEER
    Columbus MS
    ------------------------------



  • 25.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-16-2022 11:12 AM

    I find it interesting that the original comment to this thread includes this closing statement from the original commenter:
    "I am seriously considering terminating my ASCE membership because of the lack of unbiased narrative and articles. We are all scientists, present us data and facts, ALL data and facts and let us draw our own conclusions. We want more than the current political narrative."

    Granted, it maybe poor form to cast doubts about the messenger of the message in a debate, but the statement that claims "lack of unbiased narrative and articles" leaves to question how unbiased the commenter is and what does "unbiased" mean to her. We all bring our own biases and opinions to matters of debate. The desire to terminate a membership in ASCE though seems a bit harsh and reminds me of the 'cancel culture' that some have describe in social online interactions. We have all seen cancel culture phenomenon reported in general news, and I need not go into it here.

    As civil engineers, we rely on science to guide and form engineering practices. This is true for as long as the civil engineering profession has existed, a very long time. Today's debate, discussions, and disagreements about climate change seem to center on whether human activities have an effect on climate change or do they not. The debate as to whether climate changes at all over time, does not exist, it is given. ASCE's approach should carefully consider what is known, what is policy, and what is prudent practice in civil engineering.

    Climate is changing, and one example is changes in sea level over a period of time which is observable from a human lifetime scale of time. We now have climate scientists that tell us we are looking at significant sea level rise in terms of decades, and not millenia or longer timescales. As a result, ASCE should be addressing the matter from the prevailing and most current consensus of scientists in the field of study, now. We regularly consider hazards and mitigation of those hazards, and as an example, with earthquakes and floods, the timescales of maximum probable intensities are in the range of hundreds of years of reoccurrence. We then develop as a society an acceptable level of risk and feasibility of mitigating those risks, largely based on economics.

    Personally, it does not surprise me that humans have some impact and effect on climate. Many are familiar with the concept of 'heat islands' that major cities create, and that has led to some cities adopting a 'greening' of their city, planting more trees, reducing hardscape, cool roof building regulations, and such. In my years of energy utility work I undertook some projects that perceptibly changed the environment, and it became clear that anything human beings do has an environmental impact. Scale the group of humans to the level of global industry and population, and it is reasonable to accept that there will be a commensurate scaling up of environmental impacts. Mitigating those impacts is essential if we are to continue to survive and do well in the climate to which we are familiar with, and depend on. 

    I hope that ASCE continues to advance the narrative as an organization of civil engineering professionals, and commend ASCE for the good work it has done in the area of infrastructure and in recommendations on infrastructure maintenance and improvement in the USA. 

     Thomas Honles, SE, PE, M.ASCE



    ------------------------------
    Thomas Honles P.E., S.E., M.ASCE
    Power Engineering Manager
    Sequim WA
    ------------------------------



  • 26.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-16-2022 11:12 AM
    There is also substantial and clear evidence that contradicts theory of evolution.  For political reasons, this is downplayed and even mocked.  Science remains unable to explain the formation of the solar system, and the theoretical underpinnings of radiometric dating are shaky at best.  Take all scientific results with a grain of salt. The role of science is to propose theories, for the sake of knowledge, and then their work is done, and it's time to move on to the next experiment.  It is up to engineering to apply this knowledge and accept the risk that the knowledge is insufficient or incomplete.  The facts show the climate has changed, at least since we've been watching, driving ASCE's sustainability and resilience initiatives.  It's human nature to want to blame some person, some society, for what seems apparent, and natural to wish that some elite group really has or should have control over what eight billion people are doing.

    ------------------------------
    Dudley McFadden P.E., D.WRE, M.ASCE
    Principal Civil Engineer
    Roseville CA
    ------------------------------



  • 27.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-09-2022 03:46 PM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 06-19-2022 10:23 AM
    Seems like we're arguing about settled scientific matters. Evolution is not politics, is it? Global warming, WTC collapse...these are not political or mostly not even engineering issues but opponents are bringing them up in this thread.

    ------------------------------
    Tsee Lee, A.M.ASCE
    General Services Administration
    New York, NY
    ------------------------------



  • 28.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-16-2022 11:15 AM
    But the positive effects of climate change have been ignored. Haven't you noticed that there is much more biodiversity in the tropics than up in Alaska ?  Warmer weather brings more species and plants to those that have been deprived for hundreds of thousands of years. The debate is ongoing but ASCE should not be a part of it.  As engineers we do not predicr changes in climate.

    ------------------------------
    Wayne Huber
    Civil Eng
    Berkley CA
    ------------------------------



  • 29.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-20-2022 01:51 PM
    Yes.  
    Recently a retired NASA scientist called man made climate change a hoax that allows governments to spend/grant  billions of dollars to failed industries like Solyndra.  
    Much corruption occurs that involve such new government energy projects.  
    Consensus is not science.  
    Some less than ethical scientists agree with the climate change arguments to avoid loss of government grants.  Others are afraid to speak up because of the hate filled ridicule they receive from the radical climate change believers. 
    More than 20 years ago Al Gore predicted doom from global warming within a time period long past.  I think it was around 70 years ago that an article in Time magazine predicted a looming ice age. 
    It seems unfair to me that the ASCE organization continues to treat man-made climate change as an established fact. 
     ASCE could print articles from opponents of the issue supported by facts that do not rely on computer model forecasts.





  • 30.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-21-2022 11:21 AM
    Could not agree more!

    GS

    ------------------------------
    Dr Gregory Szuladzinski
    Director
    Analytical Service Co
    Northbridge, NSW, Australia
    ------------------------------



  • 31.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-22-2022 11:16 AM
    It seems odd to me that you believe an unnamed retired NASA scientist but not thousands of climatologists writing in peer reviewed publications like the IPCC reports. IPCC facts, supported by much more than computer models, are the most conclusive knowledge we have at present. If there are valid counter-arguments or corrections they should also be subject to peer review. The conspiracy swamps will continue to burp misinformation that should be ignored, not amplified.

    ------------------------------
    William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., D.CE, D.NE, F.ASCE
    ENGINEER
    Columbus MS
    ------------------------------



  • 32.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-23-2022 11:04 AM
    I do believe it is the other way around - see James Hansen, ex NASA scientist:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/science/james-e-hansen-retiring-from-nasa-to-fight-global-warming.html

    I agree with you on the corruption involved in the climate change debate. It is a pretty well known fact that many oil companies are literally spending billions to undermine any democratic effort to enable the fight against global warming. I highly recommend reading "Dark Money" to see the depths that some billionaires buy politicians to so their needs are met at the expense of everyone else's health and livelihood.

    ------------------------------
    Yance Marti P.E., M.ASCE
    Civil Engineer IV
    City of Milwaukee
    Milwaukee WI
    ------------------------------



  • 33.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-23-2022 12:54 PM
    We as members of the engineering community have taken literally years of science, physics and mathematics classes. Thes subjects are the basis of our modern industrial society. Having said this, hard sciences do not care about opinions or the religious background of the reader. Science only cares about the data. 

    Am not sure if people are aware, but Exxon-Mobiles own scientists set out to determine if climate change was real and if it is being accelerated by mankind in the 1970's. The only thing that the company tasked the scientists was to figure out if climate change is real and how can we manage the effects without compromising on PROFIT. Of course, they buried this study and actively countered any climate change narrative for decades.

    I am not a climate scientist; however, more than 97% of all climate scientists (people who literally devoted their entire lives to one subject) agree that the earth is warming and human activities are very likely accelerating it.

    The other narrative I hear consistently is that climate scientists are just greedy and their findings will only line up with what the sponsor of the study seeks. Exxon-Mobile is the highest profiting company in the history of mankind, yet they cannot seem to get more than 3% of these greedy scientists to take their money? Anyone with an open mind or a mind capable of reasoning can see that this argument does not pass the smell test. 


    ------------------------------
    William Douglas R.Eng, M.ASCE
    President
    Foundation Element
    Hurst TX
    ------------------------------



  • 34.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-23-2022 04:22 PM
    ASCE should remain neutral on political issues but the issue of climate change has moved out of the political arena into the category of settled and proven science. By now it is incontrovertible that man made global warming is an existential threat to the planet and must be mitigated at all costs

    ------------------------------
    Jack Kinstlinger P.E., F.ASCE
    Chairman Emeritus
    KCI Technologies Inc
    Towson MD
    ------------------------------



  • 35.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-15-2022 09:27 AM
    Climate science is not political unless deniers want to make it so.

    ------------------------------
    Tsee Lee, A.M.ASCE
    General Services Administration
    New York, NY
    ------------------------------



  • 36.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-15-2022 03:37 PM
    I'm afraid the United Nations already made it political by creating the Intergovernmental Panel on Clime Change.

    ------------------------------
    Kirk Uchytil
    Structural Engineer
    ------------------------------



  • 37.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-16-2022 10:27 AM
    I disagree, Kirk. USA politicians made it political for us. Al Gore making himself the face of one effort to publicize the issue was a wrong step but prominent Republican politicians made their own contribution to poisoning the well of public discussion.  Once created, the IPCC scientists did their job professionally, producing solid, defensible results that climate change is real and made worse by human activity. That's the worldwide scientific consensus and this is not the forum to debate it.
    There are proper political and engineering discussions on climate change -- what, if anything, should the USA do about it? What are the options and what will they cost? How much should we spend?

    ------------------------------
    William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., D.CE, D.NE, F.ASCE
    ENGINEER
    Columbus MS
    ------------------------------



  • 38.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-24-2022 08:01 AM

    Kenneth –

    Permit me a grain a salt.
    It seems to me that those claiming corruption and unethical practices regarding climate change science would have had an ample stage and welcoming audience during Mr. Trump's presidency, given the administration's aggressive hostility toward climate change science, with the Justice Department then spearheading forceful pursuit of criminal convictions and civil judgements of those involved.
    But. That. Did. Not. Happen.

    As to ASCE adopting neutral positions, I see ASCE as an organization advocating on behalf of professional civil engineering and the business of civil engineering.  As such, ASCE needs to advocate on issues that benefit the profession and business of civil engineering.  Certainly climate change, in whatever shape, form, or origin, presents professional and business opportunities for civil engineers, regardless of one's opinion.  You can choose to pursue those opportunities or not.

    This is no different than the periodic Infrastructure Report Card, which clearly can be viewed as self-serving to some critics, as it so obviously addresses professional and business opportunities for civil engineers.  Outcomes such as the recently enacted Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act are the consequence.  Are the subsequent opportunities of interest to you?

    As to adopting a "litmus test" with respect to one's membership in ASCE, well I can see that a certain issue is of such importance to an individual, that a litmus test is appropriate.  ASCE, though, covers members with a very broad range of interests across the spectrum of civil engineering sub-disciplines, each with their own set of issues, any of which could irritate one's personal, professional, or political views.  Applying a litmus test to one issue, amongst such a vast array of issues, seems overly constricting to ASCE's overarching pursuits on behalf of civil engineering.

    Most of my positive experiences with ASCE happen at the local branch level (where most of the "best and brightest" of the profession reside) and these have improved my personal, professional, and career endeavors as a result; I have no particular allegiance to ASCE national.  But, to borrow a phrase, membership does have its privileges, and those privileges have helped not only me, but my family as well.

    ASCE membership is optional and non-members still benefit when ASCE advocacy advances civil engineering; in the long term, though, ASCE and civil engineering benefit more when all of us are joined in those advances.

    Chuck Howard



    ------------------------------
    Charles Howard P.E., M.ASCE
    MEMBER
    Richmond VA
    ------------------------------



  • 39.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-24-2022 08:02 AM
    Dear Kenneth,
    With all due respect, Solyndra is very old news and is a tired old trope against renewable energy investments. Please be informed of the many successful solar renewable energy projects that have been installed and are generating renewable source electricity since that time.

    Whether or not climate change is "man made" (the environment and its changes are not made by humans, though human societies and civilizations at global scale do have global effects to some degree), as professional civil engineers we need to apply rational thought to problems at hand. Sea levels have risen over past centuries, there is ample evidence of that, and the rate of change in the future over the next decades is what is at debate. But we should address the potential, and I believe ASCE is doing just that.

    --
    Best regards,
    TH






  • 40.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-09-2022 11:24 AM
    Even if influenced by human activity, the climate change may have its own, strong evolutionary tendency.
    And there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.

    Sincerely
    Gregory from Oz

    ------------------------------
    Dr Gregory Szuladzinski
    Director
    Analytical Service Co
    Northbridge, NSW, Australia
    ------------------------------



  • 41.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-09-2022 11:58 AM
    I have witnessed the rush to say humans are responsible for warming the planet and counter arguments saying (basically) let us be sure before making drastic changes.  Carbon dioxide is blamed, but I have seen arguments that only a narrow band of uv is blocked by carbon dioxide.  Definitely more information and study is needed.  I think our credibility as engineers can be badly damaged by jumping on the bandwagon before we are sure.  ASCE taking its current position is I think just an effort to be "politically correct" in the digital social media age.  We need to follow a more reasoned approach, I believe.

    ------------------------------
    Stacey Morris P.E., M.ASCE
    ETI Corporation
    West Memphis AR
    ------------------------------



  • 42.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-12-2022 07:25 PM
    While Stacey has a point, for at least 17 years, scientists have studied this and come to the conclusion that there is significant and growing climate change and that CO2 has a large part to play in that change. When every respected scientific organization is making this prediction based on their study and analysis, it is not a matter of ASCE "jumping on the bandwagon" or being "politically correct". In the same vein we should not still be studying Terzhagi's geotechnical science to see if it really is true.

    Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming

    As Engineers, our primary role is to deal with the results of problems but if the problem is consistent, we should look at the bigger picture and do what we can to fix that problem.

    Looking through one of the latest issues of Civil Engineering magazine, I see other issues being brought up including Sustainability by Dennis Truax, a habitat restoration project, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (ILJA), and Mega City 2070. When you get down to it, several of those are politically progressive and require a change of political direction to move forward. ASCE should definitely be a lobbying force for these issues.

    ------------------------------
    Yance Marti P.E., M.ASCE
    Civil Engineer IV
    City of Milwaukee
    Milwaukee WI
    ------------------------------



  • 43.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-09-2022 12:27 PM
    When it comes to working hypotheses related to atmospheric greenhouse gas accumulation--escalating rate of accumulation, escalating atmospheric and ocean warming, climate change, causes, future impacts to various regions, cost-effectiveness of mitigation, etc.--civil engineers are bound (as in all cases) to 1) accept consensus working hypotheses from recognized "official" sources; 2) err on the side of caution (to an appropriate degree) with regard to uncertainties in applying those working hypotheses; and 3) support continued investigation and improvement of the working hypotheses.   For many parts of the country--like my state of Louisiana--that means taking these working hypotheses so seriously that it would be extremely unwise not to commit considerable public resources to address them.  Case in point:  the working hypothesis that the level of the Gulf of Mexico will rise as much in the next 30 years as it has in the last 100.  Gulf Coast engineers can all hope NOAA's current estimate is too aggressive, as well as support rigorous and timely refinements of that estimate.  But today, we must do the best we can to plan and design for that estimate. 

    Along these same lines, it seems more than merely prudent for ASCE to advocate a national policy that will expedite a substantial--but also a technologically sound, efficient, and minimally economically disruptive--green energy conversion.  To be sure such a policy does entail considerable room for debate.  The details of such a policy will create some big winners and some big losers, which always brings out the big, hired guns.  But again, we must move forward and do the best we can.

    Bob Jacobsen, P.E.
    A Past-President of the Louisiana Section

    ------------------------------
    Robert Jacobsen P.E., M.ASCE
    President
    Baton Rouge LA
    ------------------------------



  • 44.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-12-2022 07:25 PM
    Would you be so kind as to elaborate on your reference to " this topic in this related thread"?  Mimecast tells me I have to sign up for an account, which makes me concerned that it may be an opinion platform.  Is "Deb" an ASCE member?

    Let's focus for a moment on ASCE's Policy statement 360  It does not discuss whether "climate change" is "man-made."  I do not doubt the evidence that weather patterns are changing - the severe droughts leading to the wildfires in New Mexico, California, CO, Utah or extreme floods in NY, Houston, and other locations.  Do you dispute that these events are happening? Do you believe some politician or political movement is causing them? President George Bush stated at a press meeting in 2008 "Many are concerned about the effect of climate change on our environment. Many are concerned about the effect of climate change policies on our economy. I share these concerns, and I believe they can be sensibly reconciled." In the early 1990's, his father, George H.W. Bush had established the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which coordinates federal research on climate change and its impacts, which continues today.

    Whatever the cause, unusual weather is certainly bringing lots of rebuilding work to the Army Corp of Engineers and other civil engineering infrastructure designers and businesses. 

    I honestly hope that you do not disagree that, as the policy states,
    "Revisions to engineering design standards, codes, regulations and associated laws that strengthen the sustainability and resiliency of infrastructure" should always be on the agenda for the buildings and infrastructure we design. It "typically has long service lives (50 to 100 years) and are expected to remain functional, durable and safe during that time."   It is our job "to ensure they [civil engineering design standards] continue to provide low risks of failures and to reduce vulnerability to failure in functionality, durability, and safety over their service lives."

    Please contribute other evidence you may have relevant to this thread and whether civil engineers have a responsibility to design long-lived, resilient projects.
    thank you,

    ------------------------------
    Sarah Simon P.E., ENV SP, M.ASCE
    Founding Partner
    Ipswich MA
    ------------------------------



  • 45.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-16-2022 11:13 AM
    Yes, I am an active ASCE member.

    ------------------------------
    Debra Tarnow P.E., M.ASCE
    Senior Project Manager
    Dousman WI
    ------------------------------



  • 46.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-12-2022 07:25 PM
    Having done a fair bit of work on paleoclimatology relative to the Little Ice Age, I have become aware how little we know and how speculative much paleoclimatologic research is.  You are definitely justified in your conclusion.

    ------------------------------
    Peter Klevberg P.E., M.ASCE
    Project Manager
    Thomas Dean & Hoskins Inc
    Great Falls MT
    ------------------------------



  • 47.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-12-2022 07:26 PM
    Hi Kirk, I agree with you. Perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote. My intent was to indicated there is NO conclusive evidence to support man has an impact on climate change.

    ------------------------------
    Debra Tarnow P.E., M.ASCE
    Senior Project Manager
    Dousman WI
    ------------------------------



  • 48.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-16-2022 05:51 PM
    Hi Debra, thank you for clarifying. I agree.

    ------------------------------
    Kirk Uchytil
    Structural Engineer
    ------------------------------



  • 49.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-19-2022 12:29 PM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 05-19-2022 12:28 PM
    I believe you are mistaken to say there is no conclusive evidence that humans have caused climate change. The IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report says, "It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred." (Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis)
    When thousands of the world's best climatologists state that, it's science, not politics.

    ------------------------------
    William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., D.CE, D.NE, F.ASCE
    ENGINEER
    Columbus MS
    ------------------------------



  • 50.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-15-2022 10:41 AM

    I believe that we as professionals, and ASCE as our professional association, do have a responsibility to take positions on issues associated with our profession.  Climate change is certainly one of them. 

    What about human influenced climate change? There is a vast body of science supporting this, well beyond polling of the occupants in a single elementary school classroom.  Is this science conclusive?  Does it matter? 

    As engineers, do we always employ conclusive science in our work?  If we don't, how does that affect our practice?  What is the role of our professional judgment in our practice? 

    What if you believe / assume there is no human influenced climate change and you are wrong? 

    What if you believe / assume there is human influenced climate change and you are wrong? 

    Which belief / assumption, as an engineer, should you employ in your work? 

    Is the use of fossil based energy sources sustainable?  When will fossil based energy sources be depleted? 

    If your business requires fossil based energy as a required component, should you plan for its depletion?  When do you start to plan for its depletion? 

    Likewise, as engineers:

    -- how do you weigh the expansions of both geographic area and seasonal duration of wildfires in your practice?

    -- do you ignore the changes in extent and frequency of flooding in your work?

    -- what climate / weather data should influence your planning for municipal and building systems?

    We all have professional opinions and views, some aligned with a majority, some with a minority, and some with a fringe.  All have a role when we explore them in the constructive, collaborative ways that engineering tradition has shown us leads to better conclusions.

    Chuck Howard, PE
    Richmond, VA



    ------------------------------
    Charles Howard P.E., M.ASCE
    MEMBER
    Richmond VA
    ------------------------------



  • 51.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-16-2022 06:03 PM
    There appears to be evidence that large floods are increrasing in frequency, and that hurricanes are getting more frequent and severe.  One can blame climate change, or that the period of record has not been long enough for accurate statistical predictions.  But either way should be a consideration in both project design and in codes and standards.

    ------------------------------
    Donald Stursma P.E., M.ASCE
    Manager
    Pella IA
    ------------------------------



  • 52.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-16-2022 11:13 AM
    This has been a good discussion.  My thinking is yes, any professional association such as ASCE should be politically neutral.  In addition to the topics debated so far, there is the matter of organizations such as ASCE acting as special interest groups, to solicit Congress for taxpayer funding of projects; this is almost always pure politics, and it unfortunately has contributed to our government being in more debt than is healthy for the economy.

    ------------------------------
    Michael W. Hall, PE, M.ASCE
    Sr. Engineer
    Dolese Bros. Co.
    Oklahoma City, OK
    ------------------------------



  • 53.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-16-2022 11:14 AM
    Agreed. I might add it is not the role of engineers to engage in scientific debates.

    ------------------------------
    Wayne Huber
    Civil Eng
    Berkley CA
    ------------------------------



  • 54.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-16-2022 12:16 PM
    As professional engineers, most of us including myself prefer to stay neutral on political issues. However, that should not be a global factor. For instance, right now some of the republican representatives are getting grilled during their primary races for siding with Democrats to pass the IIJA bill. I do not think ASCE should stay silent on political issues that affect our profession/industry.
    https://www.njspotlightnews.org/2022/05/nj-4th-congressional-district-rep-chris-smith-faces-right-wing-challengers/

    ------------------------------
    Hadi Rashidi Ph.D., P.E., R.Eng, M.ASCE
    Director of Engineering
    Kensington MD
    ------------------------------



  • 55.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-16-2022 04:26 PM

    Dear ASCE Members regarding Climate and ASCE's perceived political bias

    I support ASCE and its mission. It also has disturbed me to see their political biases; one being climate. I am grateful that this has been recognized by other Members and ASCE is aware.

    Regarding climate change we engineers and scientists all have common agreement with "what" while "why" and "who" creates division. Let us continue to focus on what is happening and discontinue the why and who and ask ASCE to follow suit. What we all agree upon is that the temperature is rising and we should design appropriately.

    Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have varied from very low to very high over earth's history and in the short term window have risen from a low concentration to a current higher moderate concentration of 413 ppm. Mass balances show that shutting down all human activity that use fossil fuel along with the world's economy would reduce the current concentration  5 ppm- SO WHAT! The human contribution can be ethically minimized but there is little humans can do to stop the earth's geological rhythms.

    It is a pleasure to banter with such understanding professionals.

    Charles Taylor, ASCE, Biologist, Professional Civil and Environmental Engineer with 40 years of experience in science, design, and construction of large facilities



    ------------------------------
    Charles Taylor P.E., M.ASCE
    Environmental and Project Management
    Greenville SC
    ------------------------------



  • 56.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-16-2022 05:52 PM
    Well said!

    ------------------------------
    Kirk Uchytil
    Structural Engineer
    ------------------------------



  • 57.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-28-2022 09:25 AM
    There are 800,000 years records for atmospheric trapped in extracted ice cores. There is in fact an inextricable link between global temperatures and carbon monoxide concentrations.

    ------------------------------
    William Douglas R.Eng, M.ASCE
    Owner
    Foundation Element
    Hurst TX
    ------------------------------



  • 58.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-18-2022 05:53 PM

    Much of our profession is based on the laws of physics. If they weren't based on true principles, our profession would likely have failed long ago.  Now, here we are, discussing man-caused Climate Change and whether it is true or not.  As some have stated, the climate is always changing.  This is true and I would be happy to leave it at that, or shall I say, "the science is settled and there will be no more debate".  However, when "man-caused" is thrown into the equation, then it becomes a different story.

    For those of you that agree with the direction ASCE has chosen dealing with climate change, I would remind you that this same agenda has another subtopic that seems too often to get overlooked.  I'm referring to the war on fossil fuels.  If you had a job where fossil fuels are heavily relied upon, perhaps you would have the same concerns I do, and realize why it is so important to dig for the truth, because your livelihood is at stake.  I'm sure some would suggest that I just get another job, but I love living in the White Mountains of Arizona and this is kind of a dream job for me.

    About 10 years ago, I met with a group of people that worked at the Hunter Generating Station in Central Utah.  During our visit, they told me that Al Gore had taken a video of some of their Plant and that he modified it to make it look like there was emissions coming out of equipment that didn't have any emissions.  Some of this modified video is what he included in his film "An Inconvenient Truth".

    The science is NOT settled, and the debate is NOT over!

     

    If you are interested in researching this topic, there are two links below that will help.

    The following link talks about how this Man-caused Climate Change began:

    https://www.kusi.com/the-amazing-story-behind-the-global-warming-scam/

    The following link is a collection of over 31,000 professionals that signed a petition regarding Global Warming Petition Project:

    http://petitionproject.org/



    ------------------------------
    Kirk Uchytil
    Structural Engineer
    ------------------------------



  • 59.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-19-2022 07:57 AM
    Kirk, thanks.
    Funny thing about engineering and politics. Engineering is about recognizing a problem and solving it, same as politics. The difference is that engineering results in real world solutions that are tangible. Politics not so much.
    For example: Many years ago, the Arkansas legislature passed a law setting the value of Pi at 3.0. They did this to make it easy on school children.
    Now, some engineers will pause and wonder about this. Others will pause and find some excuse for the politicians.
    Of course, time has a way of teaching people.
    Those of you reading this understand the rest of what I am saying. And you understand which group you fit into. Some of you will smile. Some will argue.
    It has been said that engineering "is the art of doing well with one dollar, which any bungler can do with two after a fashion." Makes you think of those "engineers" in the legislature who twice passed the law about Pi, once to undo it, and once again to redo it.

    ------------------------------
    Michael Mills P.E., S.E., M.ASCE
    Structural Engineer
    Tulsa OK
    ------------------------------



  • 60.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-19-2022 01:41 PM
    I'll be brief.
    We are engineers. If one has a new project, we write design criteria. We also follow codes and guidelines that have been agreed to and should follow the minimum code requirements. As the engineer of record, you also can raise the minimum requirements based on the specific conditions of your project. You also will need to convince your client as to why the project needs to cost more based on your judgment. This applies to any project you undertake.
    Therefore, there is no reason to take a political side as an engineer or architect. We should just do our jobs as professionals.
    I read a paper about a year ago making the case that basically all bridges in operation today are susceptible to collapse because the higher climatic temperatures will cause the bridges to collapse because the current expansion requirements will not handle the increased expansion due to an increase in temperature. Everyone needs to think about that proposition. It is ludicrous. Bridges collapse due to many reasons, Most collapse due to poor maintenance and other issues not related to a 2 deg climate rise over many years.
    If the engineer designing a bridge today believes that his structure needs to be designed for a higher delta T, then by all means do so above the minimum codes and guidelines.
    Just a thought.

    ------------------------------
    Vito Rotondi, (Retired)
    Arch. S.E. P.E. M ASCE
    Westmont Illinois
    ------------------------------



  • 61.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-18-2022 06:37 PM
    Kirk,
    I could not disagree with you more! Read Scientific American article about an Exxon sponsored study from 1977 proving that the company was aware of the effects of climate change, while at the same time refusing to publicly acknowledge that there was an issue. Strangely enough, this studies only purpose was to determine the effects of climate change on their bottom line.

    There as so many internet "researchers" who literally think that their 10 minutes of research is somehow equivalent to the actual lifelong research taken on by actual scientist. Exxon-Mobile is now the worlds largest oil producing company. Yet, there is a consistent argument that these research studies are biased due to the fact that these studies are sponsored by left leaning organizations. Let us ignore that the most profitable company in the history of mankind cannot find enough crooked scientists (less than 3%) even with all of their money? This rationale does not hold water

    ------------------------------
    William Douglas R.Eng, M.ASCE
    Owner
    Foundation Element
    Hurst TX
    ------------------------------



  • 62.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-19-2022 07:58 AM
    The climate change debate has taken a cult like form. Those who question it or question it's effects risk losing their jobs and careers. Science is a process of open date, ongoing. No one has the right to proclaim the debate is over.





  • 63.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-19-2022 04:26 PM
    I think you overstate your case, Wayne. Questioning climate change doesn't risk everything for serious scientists. Making counter-claims without scientific rigor does risk condemnation, as do political claims that there is "no evidence" that humans have changed climate. Scientific debate continues, as it should, in competent science forums, not in ASCE Collaborate.

    ------------------------------
    William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., D.CE, D.NE, F.ASCE
    ENGINEER
    Columbus MS
    ------------------------------



  • 64.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-19-2022 04:35 PM
    I've watched this thread with interest. I've certainly been open with my discomfort with some of ASCE's initiatives.

    Some of what it is/has been discussed is more philosophical. For instance, would we want ASCE to take a stance on whether or not there exists a God? Given the diverse nature of ASCE membership, the relevance to our profession and professional judgement of how to design and build things and how such acknowledgement might shape our design criteria, would such a stance be relevant? Given some scientists argue the facts of a deity, yes and some no. This isn't an answer I seek within this discussion but rather a philosophical statement on tone, neutrality and politcal aims. Do we believe, with certainty, that we can/have definitively measured human-kinds impact on the world over millions of years? Should we believe when scientists say the world is between "4.54 billion years, plus or minus 50 million years" that we, given our limited time on this earth and within our limited technological means of science, believe we are infallible in our decisions, conclusions and solutions? Should we believe anything is ever settled based on authority figures or celebrity - both within science and beyond?

    D
    uring my dissertation literature review I came across many articles on engineering bias and professional judgement. One of interest, I call the Rose report. Found here: https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/immunising_the_mind_working_paper.pdf  The study focused on radicalism in engineering and medical education and calls into question the educational bias of engineers and technical professions of "one-true" solution in engineering judgement. As stated in the Rose report; ""monism" –'why argue when there is one best solution' –and of "simplism" –'if only people were rational, remedies would be simple.'" As for preservatism, "its underlying craving for a lost order." But the world is not like that, is it? This world is a kaleidoscope of opinions on "best solutions", (I liked the PI perspective from an earlier post and chuckled). Politics and power and, lately I'd add LOUDNESS" seems to win the day.

    Within ASCE membership exists some of the brightest minds in engineering and science, yet ASCE seems quite more interested in political wins than celebrating the fantastic minds we as a group possess. Most emails and articles are about fly-ins, legislative session updates, and advocacy items. The blaring headline on the ASCE website lately is all about the IIJA and then we enlist political speakers at national gatherings to encourage us in that regard,...like sheep told which way to go.

    I didn't join ASCE for any of that! I joined ASCE because that's where some of my brilliant professors published their research and acknowledged open debate of the boundaries of inferential statistics in science and the existential questions of our times. I valued a community of thinkers and doers passionate about design and built-environment. I valued the accomplished professionals encouraging a younger generation into pushing the boundaries of innovation. Perhaps, I was mistaken. 

    On one hand I get it.... we are all just trying to "make it" in this world and win a piece of the pie so we can do well by ourselves and our families. On the other, I don't understand it at all.

    ------------------------------
    Jesse Kamm PhD, PMP, A.M.ASCE
    Senior Vice President of Construction Management
    ------------------------------



  • 65.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-23-2022 12:50 PM
    I agree. With those. Who have advocated neutrality in ASCE  position. However. When faced with incontrovertible evidence. Backed up by a great preponderance of the scientific community that  man made global warming is an existential threat to the planet. It is perplexing and astounding to me that there are responsible ASCE members. Who advocates a  position opposing the views of the scientific community. There is no doubt in my mind that  Planet is facing a catastrophe from man-made global warming. And that all responsible. Members of ASCE, and of society in general, should take all steps. To avert this catastrophe. To take any other position is simply irresponsible.

    ------------------------------
    Jack Kinstlinger P.E., F.ASCE
    Chairman Emeritus
    KCI Technologies Inc
    Towson MD
    ------------------------------



  • 66.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-23-2022 04:22 PM
    I don't disagree with the philosophy of treading lightly regarding the environment and using our skills as engineers and problem solvers to find better ways to build. I've always found it personally a conflict of my own heart when I develop a new greenfield. I equally care when I get a natural restoration project. On one hand, I marvel at the ingenuity of human-kind's brilliance to do such magnificent things and on the other, I worry at the obliviousness towards our own consumption and disregard. I try to find a peaceful medium. The dichotomy is astounding though. On one hand there exists, as I read about in today's news, those that would chain themselves to a fence in DC (what is it that they think such an act resolves, is the aim more federal funding or something else?) nor do I understand a complete denial of our impact on the environment (Why wouldn't we endeavour to tread lightly?). I also wonder where lies the peaceful medium in today's times? I worry that between extremism, misinformation labels, cancel culture, etc. that a middle fails to exist.

    So I wonder aloud, what does ASCE neutrality look like?

    From my perspective, ASCE opposed a temporary hold on gas tax and advocated heavily for IIJA. OK, Fine I get it... infrastructure and transportation is the bread and butter of our society and it's what civil engineers do. But from my perspective, ASCE seems blind to the plight of the economy and the chains that came with mass shutdowns. I deal with the realities of construction regularly, currently, Steel orders are talking 6-8 month lead times and steel vendors are asking for large deposits to hold a spot in the schedule. Subcontractors, despite having lump sum contracts, are attempting to pass on any and all materials cost increases and willing to let it all on the line out of financial duress. Force Majeure claims are being thrown around like candy. Does creating more projects at the federal level help any of that? Does letting gas prices skyrocket help? Logically, if you were a supplier and had to choose between a small private $1-4MM development or a massive federal project and could capitalize on market demand in your pricing... why wouldn't you choose the federally backed projects.

    As I said in a previous post, in my opinion, this question seems less science and more philosophical at the moment. I'm heavily wrestling with some of the moves of both ASCE and this administration as there are many people hurting and I'm not optimistic we're helping for immediate relief. I've NOT been a member long enough to expertly watch ASCE's action through very many other administrations but I fear that this go around it was easier to move key word initiatives, and maybe those initiatives weren't timed right as we continue to fight our way out of a real mess.

    ------------------------------
    Jesse Kamm PhD, PMP, A.M.ASCE
    Senior Vice President of Construction Management
    ------------------------------



  • 67.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-24-2022 07:58 AM
    A very wise man, when being aggressively challenged about his credibility said, "For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth."  This bodes well for thoughtful dialogue like we are having - no harm, no foul.

    ------------------------------
    Gary Lewis Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE
    Owner
    Pine Valley Hydraulic Engineering, LLC
    Evergreen CO
    ------------------------------



  • 68.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-24-2022 07:59 AM
    There was a note from a very qualified specialist, who said the following:

    There is over 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.
    Stopping the use of ground-extracted fuels would reduce this number by 5 ppm.

    While quoting the above from memory, I might add "what is all that controversy about"?

    Sincerely

    GS

    ------------------------------
    Dr Gregory Szuladzinski
    Director
    Analytical Service Co
    Northbridge, NSW, Australia
    ------------------------------



  • 69.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-24-2022 10:18 AM
    Gregory: To answer his question and yours, please read the IPCC reports. https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/ They were written by very highly qualified specialists and peer reviewed by other highly qualified specialists.

    ------------------------------
    William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., D.CE, D.NE, F.ASCE
    ENGINEER
    Columbus MS
    ------------------------------



  • 70.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-26-2022 10:06 AM

    On November 12, 2005, Senator James Inhofe gave a speech titled "Bringing Integrity Back To The IPCC Process" (https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2005/11/post-21cc88ec-cca6-4a61-8c2e-78fa8de4850d).

    The following four paragraphs were taken from his speech:

    Today, I will discuss something else – scientific integrity and how to improve it. Specifically, I will discuss the systematic and documented abuse of the scientific process by an international body that claims it provides the most complete and objective scientific assessment in the world on the subject of climate change – the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. I will conclude with a series of recommendations as to the minimum changes the IPCC must make if it is to restore its credibility.

    When I became Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, one of my top three priorities was to improve the quality of environmental science used in public policymaking by taking the politics out of science. I have convened hearings on this subject and the specific issue of global warming science.

    I am a U.S. Senator, and a former mayor and businessman. I am not a scientist. But I do understand politics. And the more I have delved into the issue, the more convinced I have become that science is being co-opted by those who care more about peddling fear of gloom and doom to further their own, broader agendas than they do about scientific integrity.

    I am committed to shining a light on their activities. Global warming alarmists will undoubtedly continue to accuse me of attacking the science of global warming – that is part of their game. But nothing could be further from the truth. I support and defend credible, objective science by exposing the corrupting influences that would subvert it for political purposes. Good policy must be based on good science, and that requires science be free of bias, whatever its conclusions.

    Some of you will likely remember back in 2009, there was a series of emails, obtained by hackers, that were posted on the internet exposing the bias inside the IPCC.  In other words, they didn't do what Senator Inhofe had suggested back in 2005 and try to restore their credibility.  It is my opinion that the IPCC's credibility has not change much and may have gotten even worse over time in terms of suppressing other points of view.  I've noticed a trend within the last few years that many fact checkers of today often need to be checked as well.

    You cannot bully your way to a true consensus.

    As for the statement "97% of all scientists agree in man-made global warming", please listen to the 5 minute video by Richard Lindzen, a retired MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world's leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change: (https://www.prageru.com/video/climate-change-what-do-scientists-say?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIo_Ojyd_19wIVvCCtBh1mggigEAMYAiAAEgJpXfD_BwE).



    ------------------------------
    Kirk Uchytil
    Structural Engineer
    ------------------------------



  • 71.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-27-2022 04:24 PM
    Kirk: I watched most of Lindzen's 5-minute video that you recommended.  Lindzen does not delve into the intricacies of climate change, but instead (re)iterates the talking points of climate-change deniers.  The assertions he makes are not compelling (to me).  This is a link to rebuttals of Lindzen's various climate-change statements made in other media, most recent at the top: https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm  (Btw, "pragerU," Lindzen's video host, hosts only climate-change-denier viewpoints, among other "conservative media" topics.)

    Regarding Senator Inhofe's statement from 17 years ago: (1) He was stating his opinion, not science, (2) climate-change science has advanced in the interim, (3) The IPCC is still a reputable group.

    ------------------------------
    Ed Fischer, M.ASCE
    Hydrologist, Retired
    Iowa City, IA
    ------------------------------



  • 72.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-31-2022 08:02 AM
    Kirk:  Thank you for reference to Dr. Richard Lindzen.  He gives an excellent presentation to show areas of agreement between two scientific groups, who are otherwise in opposition. 
    His presentation is summarized by the United Nation's IPCC statement which reads, "The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." 
    This statement by the IPCC captures the notion that the dooms-day screams and demagogues are without basis. 
    Dr. Lindzen also makes a very good point that we are in a 200 year warming trend, of which green house emissions have only been sufficient to play a role - since 1960. 
    Dr. Lindzen is not denying anything, he is asserting fact, of which those with a political stake don't like.
    Again, thanks for the starting this discussion.

    ------------------------------
    Michael Mills P.E., S.E., M.ASCE
    Structural Engineer
    Tulsa OK
    ------------------------------



  • 73.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-31-2022 10:15 AM
    Michael, the quote you ascribe to the IPCC is incomplete. The 2001 (3rd) report, which Lindzen help write, says, "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states."* (Italics mine.) That was 20 years ago and the subsequent three reports have used the recommended probability distribution approach as recommended. It was a statement of how to proceed, not an surrender to the chaotic state of nature.
    Lindzen is a prominent contrarian wrt to climate change and scientists can see and evaluate his interpretations, as they should, in the scientific literature. Choosing to believe his popular press statements over the peer-reviewed IPCC reports is choosing to reject the established scientific process.
    * https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/WGI_TAR_full_report.pdf

    ------------------------------
    William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., D.CE, D.NE, F.ASCE
    ENGINEER
    Columbus MS
    ------------------------------



  • 74.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-10-2022 10:44 AM
    Ah, so we have no problem with ASCE forums quoting anti-climate science speeches by Republican Senators, but we have a problem with ASCE speaking on the necessity of designing for climate change.

    ------------------------------
    Tsee Lee, A.M.ASCE
    General Services Administration
    New York, NY
    ------------------------------



  • 75.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-24-2022 02:57 PM
    If we are going to say climate change is "settled science" then let us be accurate about that science. Climate is just weather averaged over a period of time, and since weather is always changing, so is our perception of climate. If one uses too short as period of time, such 3 years with respect to rainfall, one can get a perceived change that is a transient effect. The California politicians and their pals in the press repeat the mantra that California is in a long-term drought cycle with 3 years of consecutive severe drought. I am writing from a forested mountain top in northern California where the current rain year (45+ inches) is right in the middle of the 99-year modal normal - neither a drought nor even a "dry" year. Uninformed persons use mean rain, but examining the record shows that mean rain is abnormal, hardly ever happens, most years are drier than mean at 40 to 50 inches with a few years that are very wet, e.g. 136 inches 5 years ago. The same pattern appears in the flat land of northern California for which I have 150 years of records.  The two prior years were in fact very dry at 27 and 22 inches, the latter the same as to two years of the prior century, including 1923. In fact, the recent decade wasn't any drier than many prior decades - the driest decade having been the 1930s. So- the REAL science says northern California is not seeing any climate change with respect to rain patterns - the first and third wettest years in northern California rainfall history were in the past 5 years (2016-17 and 2018-19 at 136 and 103 inches respectively) . With respect to temperature, let us note that the oft published 1 Fahrenheit degree increase in long-term mean temperature is less than 1/5 of 1 percent of total standard temperature with respect to absolute zero, which is the correct way to measure change, and it does not matter whether one uses Fahrenheit or Celsius, the % change is the same. Published record high temperatures in California's coastal cities are due solely to well known, temporary reversals of winds which bring hot, dry inland air over the normally cool, moist coasts. One has to be daft to believe that a minor % change in mean temperature prompts the very real increase in severe forest fires which burn at temperatures on the order of 2,000 Fahrenheit. The real cause of the more severe forest fires is the horribly overgrown ("over stocked") state of forests, which is actually due to State regulations which limit harvesting and, until one year ago, required a 100 tree (12" diameter and larger) per acre minimum residual stocking, now changed to 42 per acre for new harvests, only, and which some California Department of Forestry officials privately admit is still too many trees for fire resilience. Since I live in a 600 acre family forest, I keep track of such things. Overgrown National Forests are that way because of environmentalists' law suits which delay and prevent harvesting and thinning - even after the forests burn.  The popular but irresponsible press often prints articles and letters warning of many feet of sea level rise in coming decades, while the correct figure provided by the late Dr. Fred Singer (one of the early global warming proponents) writing in 2018 is that actual sea level rise is  7 INCHES per century, some say ten inches per century - but either way it is certainly not feet per decade - and worry not about Antarctic ice shelves melting since they are all floating and cannot contribute to sea level change.  Bottom line: YES, there is climate change, but it is quite small, always exaggerated and not responsible for the problems attributed to it, NO crisis. Let us speak true science using actual data, not partisan political hype, in which ASCE, an organization of persons allegedly trained in science and dealing with provable facts, has no business participating. BTW: my mountain-top house has only solar electricity, not due to any "green" bias but due to the utility not bringing power up the mountain, and night use of battery power must be carefully rationed; no free lunch on solar. I have been a California Registered Engineer, both Civil and Mechanical, for about 50 years.

    ------------------------------
    Russell Greenlaw P.E., M.ASCE
    Owner
    Livermore CA
    ------------------------------



  • 76.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-25-2022 09:21 AM
    Russell: You are correct that Antarctic ice SHELVES are floating; however, it's the melting glaciers behind them that are contributing to sea level rise. In my opinion, climate change is already significant as documented by the science in the IPCC reports (https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/).  By the time it becomes a crisis, it will be too late to take action, as also shown in the IPCC reports.

    ------------------------------
    William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., D.CE, D.NE, F.ASCE
    ENGINEER
    Columbus MS
    ------------------------------



  • 77.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-25-2022 09:22 AM
    Mr. Greenlaw:
    Thank you.
    Little details are important. They tell the whole story. Unfortunately, too many people grab one fact, one anecdote and run with it.
    It is like someone who sees the corner of a house with cracks and says the corner is settling. In reality, the central area of the house is heaving. Or even funnier is the joke about the San Andreas fault which will allow California to fall off into the sea. But we know the relative movement of the tectonic plates says otherwise.
    Again, thanks for the reality check and calling out the politicians in our profession.

    ------------------------------
    Michael Mills P.E., S.E., M.ASCE
    Structural Engineer
    Tulsa OK
    ------------------------------



  • 78.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-17-2022 04:13 PM

    '. . . the trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubts. . .' This saying from Bertrand Russell (1872 – 1970) – and terming doggedly sticking-to-certainty as stupidity is perhaps too strong. But, BR emphasized upon a very important issue – as also pointed out by many others time and again – to look deep into the uncertainty of things – to better appreciate the reality.


    The ubiquitous presence of uncertainty (see The World of Numbers and Chances) asks for accommodation of alternative views – the views expressed in a responsible manner. Unfortunately, sometimes such accommodations get killed – often in the name of majority. I once had an encounter with a fellow faculty member during lunch-hour chitchat. As it happens nowadays, environment and warming climate impact came into discussion. I asked him – what was the adaptation time of certain species he was referring to. The response was rather unusual, not only in evading the simple question – but ended up with implying that engineers are responsible for all the climate-related ills. Despite this incident, my views of climate scientists were one of respect and admiration – because their hard works in collecting data from the remotest areas and others – have been helping us to understand the findings and evidences of warming climate. Although one may often disagree how they analyze and interpret things – how they connect dots of missing data, or how they discern statistical patterns.


    With these words, I am tempted to add some more to my previous posting. It is prompted by my reading of the postings of Kirk Uchytil and Michel Mills referring to Prof Richard Lindzen's lecture: The Imaginary Climate Crisis: How can we Change the Message? – and of the posting of Chad Morrison referring to Dr Walesh highlighting Hardy Cross Essays. I was not aware of these works – therefore, thank you all for the posts. They are a fascinating read and thought-provoking – representing some alternative views – in the arena of the abundance of others. I like when Lindzen said (April 2021 in his lecture): science is a 'process' rather than the 'authority'. If it is regarded as an authority – than continuing scientific quests would cease to exist.


    Here is where my opinions stand on the issue warming climate.

    • Warming climate and all the consequences associated with it in the interactive Fluid, Solid and Life Systems are real. These facts have been observed and corroborated not only by one country – but by all countries under the umbrella of IPCC/WMO/UN. Could there be analytical lapses in their methods (as pointed out by Prof Lindzen, about the effects of spatial average masking the variability of regional differences, often in contrasting evidences), or perhaps in exaggeration of some aspects, resorting to bandwagon syndrome? Well, not highly unlikely. As pointed out, one reason could perhaps be the suppression of alternative views of some sort.

    • IPCC/WMO/UN findings do not claim certainty in some of their findings, analyses and future projections. In most cases, the findings were presented in the probability scale (from 0% exceptionally unlikely to 100% virtually certain).

    • While the warming climate facts are rather well-accepted with some skepticism, there are many reasons why the opinions on the causes of warming – are not totally convergent. In my opinion, the present warming trend with all the associated consequences – is a showcase of something more than human-induced factors (see Warming Climate and Entropy). This something can be explained by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. There is an interesting episode where CP Snow wrote in his book (CP Snow, 1905 – 1980, in his book, The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution, Cambridge University Press, 1961) – that when he asked some scientists/environmentalists whether or not they knew the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics – the answers were bafflingly negative. The interpretation of the 2nd Law helps us understand – that in the Sun-Earth system, the Earth is destined to get warmer over time – subtly but inevitably (this happened many times in the past, interrupted by meteor/asteroid impacts – causing cooling episodes). This implies that human actions represent, perhaps an exacerbating factor – not the sole cause. This argument should in no way be interpreted as an advocacy of defending the damaging human actions – but rather as an insight of the warming phenomenon.

    • I agree with Lindzen along with many others including the scientists at the UN umbrella – that accurate future projection of warming trend is unattainable. I know this from my own experience as a water modeler (see Water Modeling). Some of the obvious reasons are that there are are many variables – including inputs, boundary conditions, system dynamics, etc – which are not at the replicable domain of changing future scenarios. Instead, modelers resort to simulating 'as if' or 'what if' future scenarios. Having said all these, modeling as a tool and practice is getting rapidly robust and refined – so hopefully, this hindrance will fade away somewhat in the future.

    • I am saddened to learn that some activists who attended the Lindzen lecture – interrupted the deliberation. Sad because, activists themselves complain that they do not get not adequately heard by politicians and media. Many of our social changes happen because of activists – these unpaid volunteers bring to focus the issues – the politicians and decision makers fail to understand because they are mostly hooked on looking into statistical numbers. If the activists understand their grievances, then it only makes sense they accommodate the temperament of listening to alternative views.

    -----

    Dr. Dilip K Barua, PhD

    Website

    Google Scholar




  • 79.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-18-2022 09:17 AM

    Dilip,: Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I agree with most of them. One with which I disagree is, "accurate future projection of warming trend is unattainable." The IPCC has not said that and IMO, it is incorrect. To reiterate, in 2001 the IPCC said that predicting the exact future states was not possible. They recommended instead prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states and that is what they have done in subsequent reports. That approach can be, and has been, used for the what-if scenarios you suggest. It produces very clear trends with specified uncertainty bounds for the no-action alternative.



    ------------------------------
    William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., D.CE, D.NE, F.ASCE
    ENGINEER
    Columbus MS
    ------------------------------



  • 80.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-19-2022 10:18 AM
    Thank you, Dr. Barura!!

    ------------------------------
    Stacey Morris P.E., M.ASCE
    ETI Corporation (Retired)
    Memphis, TN
    ------------------------------



  • 81.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-19-2022 10:20 AM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 06-19-2022 10:20 AM
    To all
    This topic is getting a bit stale. ASCE is not going to solve climate change.


  • 82.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-20-2022 10:47 AM
    Vito: It's unfortunate that the topic has become stale for you; however, It's important that ASCE members have accurate information on the subject and understand the differences between scientific consensus and personal opinions.

    ------------------------------
    William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., D.CE, D.NE, F.ASCE
    ENGINEER
    Columbus MS
    ------------------------------



  • 83.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-20-2022 10:48 AM
    While ASCE won't "solve" climate change, civil engineers will estimate the costs of various scenarios to adapt to the effects of climate change. Depending on how much "society" decides to invest in reducing our damage to the environment, civil engineers will plan, design, build & maintain our adaptations to global warming, sea-level rise and more extreme weather. In our role as stewards, we have the ethical obligation to advocate for policies that improve the human condition and protect the other inhabitants of our only home - Planet Earth.

    ------------------------------
    Fraser Howe P.E., F.ASCE
    ------------------------------



  • 84.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-20-2022 12:02 PM
    Fraser:
    Thanks for your response. I summed basically what you are saying in my previous brief posts. For the record, I do believe in climate change. I also believe in solving problems. We can debate a subject forever. My concern is that we spend way too much time debating the subject. My point is, enough with the debate. If we have not learned by now, we probably never will. What I do want to see as ASCE, as engineers, is solid solutions to the human issues. The solutions will of course have associated cost benefits. That is what we do. We need to be realistic as to our roles. To date, I have not seen anyone present concrete solutions to concrete problems.
    Here is an example. Ocean rising. We have known the oceans will rise for the past 125 yrs. Has anyone provided a guideline, changes on codes, specifications to address this one basic issue? Again, I use this most fundamental example. If I am to design a building along Miami shoreline, with a life of 100yrs. How do I convince the customer to spend any required additional monies in this very competitive market? This is the simplest example. So that is what we as engineers do. I have not seen any code changes that I am aware of. If there is one, that would be a welcome conversation.
    The reason I stay on this post is to gather understanding of what is in the mind of our members dedicated to designing and building safe, functional and affordable buildings and structures. Also, it is one thing for US to deal with climate change, but I do not see the rest of the world.

    Note: The military has indeed started to be concerned and is making efforts to address ocean rising in design of their ports. We are a long way off.

    ------------------------------
    Vito Rotondi, (Retired)
    Arch. S.E. P.E. M ASCE
    Westmont Illinois
    ------------------------------



  • 85.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-20-2022 02:41 PM
    Thanks for your post and question, Vito. For sea level rise, the Corps of Engineers and NOOA have collaborated to produce an online calculator that shows various predictions for future relative sea level rise at multiple locations along the US coastline. The Corps requires their projects be designed with at least three scenarios from that calculator -- low, medium, and high rates of rise -- with the final design justified in terms of risk. The calculator can be found at https://cwbi-app.sec.usace.army.mil/rccslc/slcc_calc.html.
    As far as I know, Florida hasn't established any code requirements related to sea level rise; however, flood insurance costs are rising along the coast.

    ------------------------------
    William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., D.CE, D.NE, F.ASCE
    ENGINEER
    Columbus MS
    ------------------------------



  • 86.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-22-2022 02:42 PM
    William and Vito, we are finally getting to the real issue with ASCE. While the Corp has recognized rising oceans for the Military as a global issue, ASCE in Florida has yet to decide if this is their official position.  I have been looking at rising oceans as a fact in my 30 years as an engineer. Steps built on ocean piers and boat ramps built in the 1940's in Alaska and Maine the water level keeps rising on solid 80 year old concrete steps. 

    I have proudly worked on seeing these facilities and been part of the engineering solutions and budgets and cost benefit analysis's.
    Earth Science tells us the earth is 4 million years old with periods of climate change every 700,000 year +-. 

    We are now in an ocean rising phase caused by our melting glaciers.   Al Gore lived in a 10,000 year old world and it was indeed our responsibility to fix. From all appearances that is the current perspective of young engineers. It had to be the only explanation of all glaciers shrinking everywhere.

    ------------------------------
    Eric P King, PE Retired
    ASCE Life Member
    Saint Augustine, Florida
    ------------------------------



  • 87.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-22-2022 03:24 PM
    Thanks Eric:
    I believe we are in agreement. At some point, organizations such as ASCE working with other professional organizations must establish guidelines and code recommendations to establish consistent criteria regardless of the subject matter. Warming climate affects everything. Equipment, electrical, mechanical, structural, civil etc. The debate of if the cause is humans or natural cycles will go on until the next issue raises its head. The fact is we need design criteria for the fact the climate is changing.
    We need to be wiser to what we build, where we build, how we build now and not wait for the next hurricane Harvey to occur. Then it is too late, damage is done and the complaining goes on and on. Lets truly be proactive and get consistent criteria out to the public.





  • 88.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-24-2022 12:40 PM

    The discussion in this chat string by itself should be reason enough to say "yes, ASCE should be politically neutral."  The chat string quickly and easily strayed from a discussion of "politically neutral" to "climate change" which are not synonymous terms.  Educated people in this chat can't agree if there is or is not climate change (change? or somewhere in a long cycle?);...if there is climate change is it man-made;...if it is man-made should it be a political issue.....  Once something becomes a political issue then it becomes "them against us" and is just another divisive issue.  Everyone participating in this chat is a member of ASCE, and there is obviously no consensus of opinion amongst the members in this chat, and the members are ASCE.  So how can ASCE honestly make statements on debated issues?  So yes, ASCE should be neutral.  But members can and should be individually active (on whichever side you align).



    ------------------------------
    Michael Shirk P.E., M.ASCE
    Trekk Design Group
    Kansas City MO
    ------------------------------



  • 89.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-26-2022 10:07 AM
    Opinions about climate change can certainly be given in this forum; however, ASCE's actions must be guided by actual science. The science on this subject is quite clear and has been published in the peer reviewed literature. Scientific objections to those conclusions should be addressed in the scientific literature, not here. I see objections to that literature in this forum to be politically driven.

    ------------------------------
    William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., D.CE, D.NE, F.ASCE
    ENGINEER
    Columbus MS
    ------------------------------



  • 90.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-27-2022 12:18 AM
    The opinions you are speaking about are driven by common sense.
    What you have in mind by "politics" is hard to imagine.

    Sincerely
    GS

    ------------------------------
    Dr Gregory Szuladzinski
    Director
    Analytical Service Co
    Northbridge, NSW, Australia
    ------------------------------



  • 91.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-27-2022 10:00 AM
    I have found that when people use "common sense" as their justification for an opinion they mean they have no logical, fact-based reason to offer. By political, I mean that some political partisans have adopted a climate science denial or endorsement strategy to appeal to their respective bases. Party loyalists from both parties adopt the corresponding stance through confirmation bias -- rejecting or accepting evidence according to whether it refutes or supports their adopted opinion.

    ------------------------------
    William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., D.CE, D.NE, F.ASCE
    ENGINEER
    Columbus MS
    ------------------------------



  • 92.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-27-2022 04:24 PM
    Hi William,

    I don't know if you're aware of the latest scientific research, but neuroscientists are converging on the idea that humans are less rational than we'd like to think. Facts and emotions are intricately connected; we often come up with a rational argument for our positions AFTER we've arrived at them. As a result, I think it's a futile pursuit to seek logic-based discussions on such wide-ranging topics as global warming.

    Also, as you must be well aware as an engineer, opinions are an inseparable part of our profession. There are facts, and then there is engineering judgment. You cannot practice engineering without opinions, so I don't think we should seek a discussion on climate change by throwing out opinions because they are opinions.

    Lastly, please try to maintain a civil tone and assume good faith in these discussions. I see many posts here that state only facts; perhaps you can debate those instead. To launch ad hominem attacks on other posters would be counter-productive to seeking common ground; if there's one thing we should avoid in our ASCE deliberations, I think this would belong on the list.

    What do you think?

    ------------------------------
    Tsee Lee, A.M.ASCE
    United States
    New York, NY
    ------------------------------



  • 93.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-15-2022 03:37 PM
    Thanks, Tsee. Yes, I'm aware of the all-too-human tendency for confirmation bias. Nevertheless, those of us who are able to offer rational, fact-based arguments and the opinions they produce should do so. We won't convince those who have allowed their opinions to overrule their reasoning, but many other readers are seeking genuine facts and reasoning. If they see only wrong opinions, they begin to believe them. We have a duty to those open minds.
    I agree that ad hominem attacks are inappropriate and ASCE doe a good job of removing those posts that use insulting language. On the other hand, pointing out fallacies of logic and sources is another service we can perform without accusing other posters of being intentionally misleading.

    ------------------------------
    William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., D.CE, D.NE, F.ASCE
    ENGINEER
    Columbus MS
    ------------------------------



  • 94.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-22-2022 03:26 PM
    Dr McAnally, 
    Thank you for pointing out we engineers need solid facts from solid science. 
    When the changing climate debate began in the US Al Gore blamed it wholly on green house gases.  
    No one was talking about actual Earth Science:

    The earth is over 4 Billions years old. 

    Earth Scientists try to inform us that we have significant climate swing every approximately every 700,000 years.

    There was an Ice Ball Earth with frozen oceans from pole to equator! New York City was under 1000 feet of ice. 

    And of course there were periods of tropical plants in the Arctic. This was during the period of the dinosaurs 165 Million years ago.

    Some say we are headed there now and I expect it to happen with the melting Permafrost. There is nothing we can do to change this.  

    The problem with the current debate is that we don't get credit for our Clean Air Act in the US. 
    Canada, China and India have not such policy.   

    The previous administration pulled out of the Climate Accord because virtually no other country is doing effective change.  

    Our current policy has nothing to do with science as did Al Gore's. 
     
    At ASCE we have a duty to open minds. 

    Eric King PE Retired


    ------------------------------
    Eric P King, PE Retired
    ASCE Life Member
    Saint Augustine, Florida
    ------------------------------



  • 95.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-23-2022 10:17 AM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 06-26-2022 12:21 PM
    I don't believe that "iceball Earth" and NYC's thousand-foot ice happened at the same time. I've read that the city was under twice that much ice at the peak of the last (current?) ice age. Will we ever know the depth of the ice half a billion years ago?

    Also, Snowball Earth is, as far as I can tell, a hypothesis with less evidence or consensus than global warming. In fact, one of the reasons the idea is not universally accepted is because global climate models have been unable to recreate such an event.

    Other abrupt changes in the composition of Earth's atmosphere, such as the Great Oxidation Event, caused extinctions, but they require acceptance of...global climate models. That's a warning against, not an excuse for, doing nothing about our almost unprecedented injection of greenhouses gases into the atmosphere.

    ------------------------------
    Tsee Lee, A.M.ASCE
    General Services Administration
    New York, NY
    ------------------------------



  • 96.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-27-2022 10:43 AM
    Here is an example of a new archaeological study done in England at the Isle of Wight, on the south coast of England across from Normandy, France. See link below. 

    They had a port there that they traded wheat from England to various trading partners, 8000 years ago.
    That site of the those docks is now under 35 feet of water.  

    So a couple obvious questions: at this pre-air pollution time, what caused the glaciers to start / continue melting, raising the ocean 35 feet world wide?

    Once glaciers melt, what would have to happen for glacier building to begin again?

    I really DO want the Perma Frost to stop melting. Real time there are big methane releases happening now in the Arctic. 

    Thanks. 
     


    Stone Age Settlement Found Under English Channel
    livescience.com remove preview
    Stone Age Settlement Found Under English Channel
    (Image credit: Hampshire and Wight Trust for Maritime Archeology (HWTMA)) Erosion on the floor of the English Channel is revealing the remains of a busy Stone Age settlement, from a time when Europe and Britain were still linked by land, a team of archaeologists says.
    View this on livescience.com >


    ------------------------------
    Eric P King, PE Retired
    ASCE Life Member
    Saint Augustine, Florida
    ------------------------------



  • 97.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-27-2022 05:56 PM
    Eric: The answers to your questions can be found in the IPCC reports. The best description of processes affecting the Last Glacial Maximum is in Chapter 6 of Report 6 (https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ar4_wg1_full_report-1.pdf). It was released in 2007, and there are now refined scientific perspectives on the relative magnitude of the several mechanisms, but the overall picture hasn't changed.

    ------------------------------
    William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., D.CE, D.NE, F.ASCE
    ENGINEER
    Columbus MS
    ------------------------------



  • 98.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 07-05-2022 08:38 AM
    Yes, there have been historic changes.  Here in Hampton Roads, Virginia, sea level has risen by about a foot in the last hundred years.  However, in Turkey the city of Ephesus, an active port 2000 years ago, is now about 10 miles from the Mediterranean Sea.  So a single data point, which is the most obvious thing to most lay persons, can be misleading.

    ------------------------------
    William Forbes MASCE, PE, ME, BCEE
    Senior Principal Engineer/Vice President of Engineering
    Forensic Analysis & Engineering Corporation
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    [Phone]
    ------------------------------



  • 99.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 07-11-2022 11:14 AM

    People need to keep in mind that land rises and falls with respect to other land over time - there are many places on the California coast where land has risen above sea level providing flat plains a hundred or more feet above current sea level, with cliffs between there and the ocean. At other places land is subsiding - volcanic islands in the Pacific are doing that constantly, leaving ring-like atolls. The oldest, northwest-most Hawaiian Islands are sea mounts well below current sea level, unrelated to recent sea level change, which has been pegged at about 7 inches per century (Dr. Fred Singer, 2018), not the multiple feet per decade that one sees in the irresponsible press. Not surprising that locations in Turkey could be higher than millennia ago, other places lower. I recall a presentation, about five decades ago, on creep in both concrete and natural rock formations such that places on the Greenland coast are still slowly emerging in response to the loss of deep ice overburden following the "end" of the last ice age, given as an example of long term creep.



    ------------------------------
    Russell Greenlaw P.E., M.ASCE
    Owner
    Livermore CA
    ------------------------------



  • 100.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 07-11-2022 01:53 PM
    Mr. Greenlaw:
    Thank you, again. You add great details to this discussion. I will add to your example of land movement.

    There are pictures of petrified tree stumps along the Welsh coast. The story-line reads that a modern storm has uncovered these. The stumps are rotted off at the historic water line, maybe 5000 years ago.

    Thus, these form a record of a sea level having risen into an ancient forest, killing the forest, and rotting the trees to the stump at the water line. The stumps were covered in sediment, then petrified. The recent storm has washed away the sediment to reveal that the sea level was less than now at modern times, allowing the trees to grow in a non-salted soil.  But then the sea rose higher. Now the sea has receded, but not as much as the historic record, since the stumps are presently seen within the tidal influence.

    And you, Mr. Greenlaw have accurately pointed out, we need to also determine if the earth surface has moved in this location.

    There are important steps that need to be taken when making conclusive statements about seal level rises and recessions. Such steps are important given that there is a significant relationship. Single observations do not answer all of the questions.

    The politics of global warming is not science.  The codes that we design under should be based on proven science with a favorable benefit to cost ratio.  It is our duty to give good value to our clients.

    ------------------------------
    Michael Mills P.E., S.E., M.ASCE
    Structural Engineer
    Tulsa OK
    ------------------------------



  • 101.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 07-11-2022 02:29 PM
    The problem is not that climatologists have ignored or forgotten about tectonic activities. Geologists in California and Washington would've reminded them in a heartbeat. The problem is that even taking such factors into account, there is still sea level change due to changing climates.

    Just like how Indians who are repairing their damaged Himalayan dams have to take into account both tectonic factors that are raising their mountains as well as thawing glaciers that are endangering their infrastructure and people.

    ------------------------------
    Tsee Lee, A.M.ASCE
    General Services Administration
    New York, NY
    ------------------------------



  • 102.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 07-12-2022 08:31 AM
    Mr. Greenlaw: You are correct that land is rising or falling globally, depending on local conditions. That's why NOAA and the Corps use Relative Sea Level (RSL) change as the recommended design variables. Each long-term station RSL is calculated as the rate of sea level rise with respect to the subsiding or rising land surface. 
    You can see the rates of change at a number of US locations at https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/.

    ------------------------------
    William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., D.CE, D.NE, F.ASCE
    ENGINEER
    Columbus MS
    ------------------------------



  • 103.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-23-2022 10:19 AM
    Thanks for your thoughts, Mr. King. Some aspects need clarifying. You're correct that China and India are not reducing their greenhouse gasses emissions; however, the USA, Canada, and many other other countries are making significant progress in doing so. We may not reach the targets set in the Paris Accords, but we can still make substantial reductions in human contributions to global warming and its resulting climate change and sea level rise.
    The IPCC reports (https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/) provide a solid science foundation showing that the current acceleration in global warming is caused by humans adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. Those reports take into account the entire 4 billion year history of the earth's climate cycles. They also show that we can reduce future adverse effects by taking action now. That's what the best science available is telling us. What we do about that scientific evidence is for informed voters and political leaders to decide.

    ------------------------------
    William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., D.CE, D.NE, F.ASCE
    ENGINEER
    Columbus MS
    ------------------------------



  • 104.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-24-2022 09:49 AM
    One of our climatologists said there is some 417 ppm of carbon dioxide particles in the air.
    If all human activity related to "ground fuels" ceases, the number of particles will decrease
    by 5.
    Do we all have it in mind?

    GS

    ------------------------------
    Dr Gregory Szuladzinski
    Director
    Analytical Service Co
    Northbridge, NSW, Australia
    ------------------------------



  • 105.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-24-2022 11:44 AM
    Thanks for providing those numbers again, Gregory. They are approximately consistent with the IPCC report 6, to which I referred you the last time you mentioned them.
    The rest of the story: The 6th IPCC report (https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/) shows three possible scenarios for future CO2 emissions and resultant warming. You have given us the zero emissions scenario numbers. A moderate emissions scenario shows that CO2 concentrations will increase to 600 ppm in about 100 years. A high emissions (do nothing) scenario shows an increase to about 2000 ppm CO2 and a global average temperature increase of 9 deg C. Those are the numbers that cause consternation. 
    The reason that the reduction from zero CO2 emissions would be so small is that the gas has a very long life in the atmosphere -- at least 300 years. That's why climatologists say that some global warming in already locked in. Eliminating all fossil fuels in a short time is wildly impractical, so the 5 ppm number is irrelevant; however, a gradual shift is in our best interest.

    ------------------------------
    William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., D.CE, D.NE, F.ASCE
    ENGINEER
    Columbus MS
    ------------------------------



  • 106.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-24-2022 02:13 PM
    Dr Szuladzinski:

    Thanks for the data. Is the CO2 number a local number or global? The 5 reduction seems rather small. I am not doubting it, Just seems small.

    Do you also have a read on methane? Latest thinking is that methane is the much higher risk.

    Thanks


    ------------------------------
    Vito Rotondi, (Retired)
    Arch. S.E. P.E. M ASCE
    Westmont Illinois
    ------------------------------



  • 107.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-28-2022 04:14 PM
    Dr. Szuladzinski:
    Thanks for the information and for bringing another point of focus. 5 ppm out of 417 ppm is 1% and it shows how insignificant that human activity is.
    It also shows how significant all the other activity is on the earth. Such activity starts with the infrared heating of the earth from the sun; volcanic eruptions, wave action of the seas, plant and animal decay, natural methane leaks and ionization, ....
    These are activities that humans have no control over.
    Now, a question that should not be ignored.
    For those who advocate controls, what are the costs of those controls and are they guaranteed?
    It is high risk to offer a solution to any problem, when the solution is based on controlling way less than 1% of a parameter.
    If an engineer provides a solution that doesn't work, there is a question of fraud otherwise called malpractice or bad practice. In common language, we might begin using the word hoax.

    ------------------------------
    Michael Mills P.E., S.E., M.ASCE
    Structural Engineer
    Tulsa OK
    ------------------------------



  • 108.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-29-2022 10:03 AM

    Michael: I think you may misunderstand the predicted 5 ppm CO2 reduction. Perhaps I should have explained it more carefully in my reply to Gregory. A 5 ppm decline from our present 400 ppm is indeed trivial and the reason it's trivial is that recent rapid increases in greenhouse gasses from human activity are already locked in. Another decade of methane conversion in the atmosphere would keep contributing CO2 even if we stopped direct greenhouse gas emissions. The result would be a loss of 5 ppm instead of a 200 ppm increase in CO2. That would be triumph, except it's not possible.

    The goal is to prevent a runaway greenhouse effect. As I said to Gregory, the 6th IPCC report (https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/) shows several scenarios for future CO2 emissions and resultant warming. A high emissions scenario shows an increase to about 2000 ppm CO2 and a global average temperature increase of 9 deg C. Those scenarios are the best science predictions available. Using the word "hoax" is inappropriate.

    You are certainty right to ask about the costs of adapting to global warming versus doing nothing. I'll look for some estimates on those costs.



    ------------------------------
    William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., D.CE, D.NE, F.ASCE
    ENGINEER
    Columbus MS
    ------------------------------



  • 109.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-30-2022 10:08 AM
    Dr. McAnally:
    If the word "hoax" is not appropriate, then perhaps you have a better word.  When someone does not get what they paid for, what word do you use?

    ------------------------------
    Michael Mills P.E., S.E., M.ASCE
    Structural Engineer
    Tulsa OK
    ------------------------------



  • 110.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-30-2022 05:36 PM

    Mr. Mills:

    I respect your opinions but do not share them, for the reasons given in my replies. Our discussion can be educational for both of us, provided we at least recognize facts the other has offered. For example, your statement using the word hoax was based on the assertion that someone was recommending a solution to reduce CO2 concentrations by 5 ppm. As I explained in my reply, immediately abandoning fossil fuels would avoid an additional 150 ppm rise in CO2 in the no-action alternative. That would be a huge accomplishment but as far as I know no engineer has recommended it because it's impractical. Your follow-up question about hoax does not account for my explanation.

    You make an important statement by using the word risk. The IPCC reports express all findings in terms of qualitative probability or likelihood. The likelihoods of warming and climate change can be combined with the likelihoods of damage to estimate risks. An engineer's responsibility is to accurately communicate those risks to our clients so that responsible decisions can be made. Our interpretation of global warming risks must be informed by the best available science and engineering, which is provided by the IPCC and the National Academies of Engineering and Science.

    As to your question about costs. A wide variety of estimated costs of global warming and efforts to mitigate it are available. Here are some samples:



    ------------------------------
    William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., D.CE, D.NE, F.ASCE
    ENGINEER
    Columbus MS
    ------------------------------



  • 111.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 07-05-2022 10:18 AM
    The discussion has wandered through a lot to do with CO2 emissions. Interesting since CO2 never made it into the status of a semi regulated pollutant until 2011. And then there was this: "The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency does not have the authority to set limits on carbon emissions from existing power plants."

    It would seem that the "obvious" or "the debate is over" perception is not translatable into legislative action on face value without an enforceable standard to deal with an established, certain hazard. The critique that any of us have not been paying attention to science is inaccurate. It gave us new and better ways to crack hydrocarbon molecules since all the things that made possible were easily marketable.  Science that can promote growth gets funded. The hazard is the accumulation of bi-product of so much activity that is not an irritant in and of itself. Deal with that in a fair and even handed manner, easier said than done.

    It's safe to say there are nearly more humans existing now that have ever lived, or maybe we've even passed that mark. The debate about what the target should be with CO2 is irrelevant in practice, whatever CO2 they need to produce, they will until better methods can win over the marketplace, and not by force. That is key to any successful strategy, knowing when the forces aligned behind whatever you oppose are too deep or pervasive to blow through with experimental methods like seeking a viable way to regulate CO2 by targeting one industry in a market economy by force of law. It's either a rule for all based on a clear and present hazard, or it isn't. The leeway granted to the EPA in 2011, was not able to stand up to legal challenges. Such is the rule of law. 


    ------------------------------
    William Bala P.E., S.E., M.ASCE
    Owner
    Hawkins TX
    ------------------------------



  • 112.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 07-12-2022 05:05 PM
    It's hard to think of a more political topic than current Supreme Court decisions. SCOTUS is not a scientific body and it is not involved in any scientific debates on climate change. And whether the US Government has a right to protect the environment has no bearing on whether engineers should prepare for the consequences of climate change.

    ------------------------------
    Tsee Lee, A.M.ASCE
    General Services Administration
    New York, NY
    ------------------------------



  • 113.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 07-05-2022 08:39 AM
    One thing I find hard to comprehend:

    After several hundred years of industrial activity, we have 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.
    If you give it another 10 years, will it go to 2000 ppm?

    Sincerely
    Gregory from Oz

    ------------------------------
    Dr Gregory Szuladzinski
    Director
    Analytical Service Co
    Northbridge, NSW, Australia
    ------------------------------



  • 114.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 07-05-2022 10:16 AM
    Gregory:
    I cannot substitute for your own reading of the IPCC reports. Please see Fig TS.1 of the 6th Report's Technical Summary. It shows three of the 5 scenarios used in the projections with time histories of CO2 and temperature change.

    ------------------------------
    William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., D.CE, D.NE, F.ASCE
    ENGINEER
    Columbus MS
    ------------------------------



  • 115.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-26-2022 12:17 AM
    I find it to be political to blame the Texas troubles on green energy, when it's more of an economic problem from deregulation and continued reliance on natgas.

    ------------------------------
    Tsee Lee, A.M.ASCE
    United States
    New York, NY
    ------------------------------



  • 116.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-26-2022 10:07 AM
    Your are completely correct, Tsee. Our Texas power generation equipment of all kinds was not properly winterized. Gas wells froze just like windmills did. Being disconnected from the surrounding states' grids compounded the problem.

    ------------------------------
    William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., D.CE, D.NE, F.ASCE
    ENGINEER
    Columbus MS
    ------------------------------



  • 117.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 05-27-2022 10:37 AM
    The Texas winter storm in 2021 was caused by the Artic Ocean heating up

    ------------------------------
    Khalil Bell EIT, A.M.ASCE
    Civil Analyst
    Kimley-Horn
    Atlanta GA
    ------------------------------



  • 118.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-08-2022 11:22 AM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 06-08-2022 11:22 AM

    I would agree that ASCE, in accordance with its own Code of Ethics, must get back to taking neutral engineering stances on topics.  Not doing so is destructive to the integrity of the engineering profession and the esteem in which the public holds us.  Two issues come to mind.  Hurricane Katrina, where ASCE received $2M from the USACE to help with an independent study of the USACE's involvement in the New Orleans flood walls.  I believe this presents a conflict of interest to benefit the client.

    Then, the 9/11 WTC studies.  The NIST report on WTC7's progressive collapse mechanism has been thoroughly debunked by the UAF published study - Girder A2001 could not have walked off its support, beam stiffeners were left out, column stiffeners were left out, falling floor loads were overestimated by 10x, shear studs were left out, temperatures were overestimated, incorrect movement direction of beams due to thermal expansion, and therefore no buckling and collapse of Column 79 - by multiple factors of safety.  The NIST software-generated collapse sequence could not be taken to completion, and its initiation does not follow the actual collapse in the video.  ASCE should accept papers critical of NISTs report for publication that acknowledge this. ASCE is not serving its membership or the profession well in these regards.

    ------------------------------
    John Schuler P.E., M.ASCE
    PROGRAM MANAGER
    Virginia DOT
    Richmond VA
    ------------------------------



  • 119.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-09-2022 07:55 AM
    It is good to read perspectives of others on this topic.

    ASCE moved HQ from NYC to the DC area in 1996 [I am old enough to know that occurred but certainly needed to search for the year].  I am young enough or maybe too naive to have had any concerns myself at that time about the impact of such a move in terms of ASCE becoming too political. 

    Are there others that read this who recall discussions/debates/arguments about ASCE move to the DC area? 

    Have concerns come true about ASCE becoming political just as a result of that move? 

    I believe that some years after the relocation to DC area (present location in Reston, VA) for ASCE HQ, just establishing an ASCE Office inside DC itself, created a bit of unease too.  The ASCE Government Relations location on Massachusetts Avenue is quite near, great view, of the Capitol. 

    The move to DC, in part, as I recall, was to become more engaged with government.  Also a big part of the move was financial due to the costs of being in NYC.  That does not necessarily mean that being engaged with government is also taking sides politically (many may disagree).  Also, some years ago, circa 2005 to 2012 +/-, there were at least two (I believe) major efforts with decisions by the ASCE Board to change organization status to permit donations to political candidates.  Both were voted down but not overwhelmingly.  Very close votes if memory serves me well. 

    Who recalls those decisions by the Board and would anyone want such an issue, change organization status to permit donations to candidates? 

    ASCE is a 501 (c) (3) which can not make direct donations and which has restrictions on political activity. 

    https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-501c3-organizations

    ------------------------------
    David Devine P.E., P.S., M.ASCE
    Fort Wayne IN
    ------------------------------



  • 120.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-09-2022 01:19 PM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 06-19-2022 10:23 AM
    Climate change or designing for climate change isn't a political issue. Opposing efforts to deny climate change, such as the inability of civil engineers to use words like "global warming" and "sea level change" in certain parts of the US, should be some of the basic things ASCE does.

    ------------------------------
    Tsee Lee, A.M.ASCE
    General Services Administration
    New York, NY
    ------------------------------



  • 121.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-25-2022 10:05 AM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 06-25-2022 10:05 AM
    Regarding Climate Change or planet warming: anyone who has studied Earth Science knows it is about 4 billion years old and that the earths climate changes from warming to cooling approximately every 700k years. In the coolest point of the cycle they tell us the earth is a snowball, with frozen oceans from pole to equator. NY City was under 1000 feet of ice then. In the warm cycles we had the rule of the dinosaurs and now us. We really have nothing to do with these huge climate cycles. 

    We also live in a time where our concept of the age of the earth in our churches, based on the literal reading of the Bible, is less than 10,000 years. That Bible also says we are the Stewards. I think I have read the Save the Earth Movement started in Europe where they first saw the melting glaciers in the Alps, then over here in the Rockies, at Glacier National Park. 

    Al Gore's environmental movement was based on a 10,000 year old earth, and of course our carbon emissions was the cause. Right now some of them are blaming cows farting as contributing factors, research paid by tech billionaires. 

    In my 30 years of civil engineering design and construction experience in Alaska and on the East coast from Maine to Florida where you can see today rising ocean water on facilities I designed and built. These are not trivial problems! Islands being submerged is concerning, but ALL coastal facilities are impacted. 

    Our engineering world has huge challenges for defining the scope of this work and the coming up with accurate estimates of the costs ($$$) required.

    I am retired now. You are all are up to this if you don't listen to politicians or erroneous research. 

    Sincerely, 
    Eric P King 
    ASCE Life Member (Retired)


    ------------------------------
    Eric King P.E.
    Jacksonville FL
    ------------------------------



  • 122.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-09-2022 03:47 PM
    John: You raise a legitimate question about ASCE accepting USACE money to review the IPET report. ASCE's Katrina report states that it represents the views of the authors, independent of the USACE. The authors themselves are in the best position to support or refute that statement; however, the report contains strong criticisms of the Corps' funding, design, and review processes, which suggest to me that the authors gave no special consideration to the USACE. 
    As to the World Trade Center, you appear to be disagreeing with the engineering aspects of ASCE's evaluation, not suggesting a political bias. Your engineering opinion should be heard but one of the journals would be a better forum than this short form discussion.

    ------------------------------
    William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., D.CE, D.NE, F.ASCE
    ENGINEER
    Columbus MS
    ------------------------------



  • 123.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-13-2022 03:58 PM

    Interesting discussions – and thanks Kirk for floating the issue of warming climate once again – but in the context of neutrality. I like to delve a little bit on the Neutrality term – in an attempt to clarify some of our understandings.

    • Neutrality (antonym: bias, subjectivity) can be viewed from at least 3 standpoints: first is simply silence (because of don't care attitude or simply because of ignorance); the second arises from apparently knowledgeable sources – well, somewhat (because such knowledge are hardly beyond the materials covered in popular news media, views are totally tainted by looking at things through some one else lens). They tend either to remain silent or opine in one way or another. The third are educated elites (elites in seats of power to be exact, but not all are at the same scale, though!) who tend to be highly opinionated – whether they have total grasp of things or not. Most of this group may deliberately remain silent or may be very vocal.

    • Where do the civil engineers stand? Those who are involved in construction businesses have very little room to pass opinion in one way or another (although Code of Ethics advises them to opine on things they see differently) – because the client has supposedly gone through examining all the pros and cons. Those, who are in consulting, or in project initiation/administration – are supposed to opine, chart directions – whether they are political or not.

    • Professional societies/entities like ASCE – by definition, are supposed to remain neutral. Because, they represent all members irrespective of affiliations/inclinations. But, by representing a particular profession of the greater society, they are also mandated to uphold the interests of the society in general. To be fair to this goal, their analyses/findings/opinions are supposed to be objective – grounded to the facts – without any taint of subjectivity. This does not mean – however, that some may or may not view them as lacking neutrality.

    • Politics? Well, most are fed up with this term – how it messes up things, in the name of doing good. But, the processes of politics are not going anywhere. Not only do the politicians abuse this system – it is also affecting all societal behaviors – perhaps corrupting everything in its name. So avoid it? One can dream about it – but the reality is that it's not likely to happen.


      I leave at this for today.

    -----

    Dr. Dilip K Barua, PhD

    Website

    Google Scholar




  • 124.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-13-2022 11:16 PM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 06-14-2022 08:00 AM
    I picked up a copy of Hardy Cross' Engineers and Ivory Towers at the suggestion of @Stuart Walesh   Time for a Change?

    The full text is available here: Hardy_Cross_essays.pdf (purdue.edu)

    As engineers, I would like to think we all belong in what would be referred to as the "educated elite."  Cross wrote about how engineers fit within the rigors of academia and are so well suited for public service.  Much of what was written is still applicable today.  Policies can change, our enthusiasm to tackle societal challenges should not. 


    ------------------------------
    Chad Morrison P.E., F.ASCE
    Professional Engineer
    Greenville RI
    ------------------------------



  • 125.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-20-2022 10:46 AM
    I believe that ASCE should lead in the areas directly related to our expertise and our direction must be totally based in the scientific analysis of that subject. As an example, the statistical analysis that establishes the 100-year storm event for each location in the world should be calculated and utilized to compare all storms against each other. The Weather Channel seems to establish a "flood event" at anything over 1 inch. Depending upon the duration of the event this could be a 1-year storm or a 100-year event. The statistical analysis is to be performed annually or at least every 10 years to compare all storm data from the 1800s to present day. The most recent analysis of Bulletin 70 was 1989 by the Illinois Water Survey. The 100-year events for various durations in Springfield, IL are listed below:

    10-Day --- 11.11 inches
    5-Day --- 9.60 inches
    72 Hours --- 8.69 inches
    48 Hours --- 8.00 inches
    24 Hours --- 7.40 inches
    18 Hours --- 6.80 inches
    12 Hours --- 6.42 inches
    6 Hours --- 5.56 inches
    3 Hours --- 4.73 inches
    2 Hours --- 4.35 inches
    1 Hour --- 3.45 inches
    30 Minutes --- 2.69 inches
    15 Minutes --- 1.95 inches
    10 Minutes --- 1.62 inches
    5 Minutes --- 0.89 inches

    The bulletin compares the storms with a 24-Hour duration for the period of 1941 to 1980 against the same duration for the period of 1901 to 1940. The analysis shows most of the state has the same rainfall amount in both periods with 3 primary exceptions that show a 20% increase in the rainfall in the 1941 to 1980 time period. Yes, this data does not even include the storm data for the period defined by most as the period of significant climate change as the analyzed storms stop in 1980. The analysis is missing 1/3 of the data or the last 42 years! In addition, it is missing the records from the 1800s. The analysis is impacted with ALL storms are used in the present day or 1941 to 2022 while only the major storms are recorded in the pre-1941 era. This directly affects the statistics and the results.

    How can we determine temperature or rainfall changes without using the last 42 years or pre-1900 data?

    The 12-month total precipitation increased 10.1 inches from June 1900 to May 2022. From June 1900 to May 2022, the average 12-month total precipitation was 36.9 inches. The wettest 12-month average was 59.3 inches in August 1926 to July 1927 and the Driest 12-month average was 20.7 inches from March 1930 to February 1931. However, there is not a significant trend from 1900 to 2021 with the wettest year 1926 and the driest 1930.

    ------------------------------
    Gary Laforge P.E., M.ASCE
    President
    Lincoln IL
    ------------------------------



  • 126.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-24-2022 03:29 PM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 06-26-2022 12:20 PM
    Just got an ASCE email regarding the Society's opposition to President Biden's gas tax holiday proposal. Since I haven't seen anyone raise the issue in this thread, I'd like to bring it up for discussion. Do you support or oppose this political engagement?

    ------------------------------
    Tsee Lee, A.M.ASCE
    General Services Administration
    New York, NY
    ------------------------------



  • 127.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-24-2022 04:02 PM
    On the subject of a fuel tax holiday- I am in favor of the holiday for a variety of reasons, and therefore opposed to ASCE opposing such a holiday.
    My reasons:  high fuel taxes, particularly diesel, contribute to general inflation of producer and consumer prices which is harmful to the economy in general, to construction and other diesel-intensive industries (including forestry/logging/lumber in which I am a participant: anything that obstructs forest thinning contributes to intensity of forest fires). High gasoline taxes are damaging to less affluent families as well, and will lessen summer tourism and travel which will be quite harmful to rural economies in particular. The federal government can easily afford a fuel tax holiday, and California in particular with both high taxes and a huge budget surplus can afford a holiday very well. California roads and highways are poorly maintained despite the highest fuel taxes in the nation - due to wasting the money on non road/highway projects - a recent increase in fuel taxes devoted only 40% to roads and highways, with 60% going to hiking trails, bike paths, bus subsidies, and the infamous low-speed train to nowhere. California tax monies are used to buy votes from special interests and seldom for the general good.  A fuel tax holiday would be very beneficial. ASCE should look at the bigger picture and not oppose a holiday.

    ------------------------------
    Russell Greenlaw P.E., RCE, RME, M.ASCE
    Owner
    Livermore CA
    ------------------------------



  • 128.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-24-2022 06:29 PM
    I have not seen the ASCE email.  However, inasmuch as the gas tax holiday is a political measure to address economic matters, ASCE should remain neutral.
     
    ASCE should, though, lay out the pro's and con's to aid the political folks in their deliberations.

    ------------------------------
    Charles Howard P.E., M.ASCE
    MEMBER
    Richmond VA
    ------------------------------



  • 129.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-26-2022 11:11 AM
    I agree that it's a purely political and economic issue. It has even less salience to the engineering profession than how best to respond to changing climates.

    ------------------------------
    Tsee Lee, A.M.ASCE
    General Services Administration
    New York, NY
    ------------------------------



  • 130.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-27-2022 10:42 AM
    The purpose of the Federal Gas Tax established by Pres Eisenhower was for was for National Road (Interstates) maintenance.
    Those funds got stolen by the Republicans in the 80's, and eliminated the gas tax.

    Recently ASCE tried to get those fuel taxes put back. 

    No one expected the price of fuel to $5 a gal - $7 CA OR WA

    ------------------------------
    Eric P King, PE Retired
    ASCE Life Member
    Saint Augustine, Florida
    ------------------------------



  • 131.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 06-27-2022 05:56 PM
    Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Tone??? No, silence from people who are generally considered intelligent can't possibly be golden. I'd look for sources if I were to investigate a failure, a fatality, a culture of poor safety practices. Engineers speaking out is absolutely vital. I would venture that it's part of the responsibility required when an engineering degree is conferred, most certainly when an Engineer registers as a PE.
    If an argument before the city council asking for a ban on internal combustion engine vehicles alleges things that aren't what your education and judgement tells you they are being touted as, you better speak up. Environmentalists are like any other group, some can be romanced by the idea of a free lunch, some know better.

    The idea that batteries don't produce energy, they store it, something that seems obvious, has slipped off the table in a lot of these debates along with an understanding of the hardship draconian regulation can produce. If climate change can't be meaningfully impacted by regulatory actions in a few US cities, because the playing field is far from level internationally, why club the US economy into submission? When two major powers in Asia are all too happy to blow through emission limit targets because no one has the clout to stop them aren't the the cause for concern?. Are their engineers encouraged to speak out?

    The short version is if you don't speak out, as an engineer, who will? So speak your mind. Even the Swiss are giving up neutrality in all things.

    ------------------------------
    William Bala P.E., S.E., M.ASCE
    Owner
    Hawkins TX
    ------------------------------



  • 132.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 07-12-2022 10:50 AM
    OK, I agree that we as engineers should speak out--just don't claim to represent ASCE.  It seems that my views on green energy are much different from yours.
    Even at the local level, in Orlando/Orange County, Florida, we have a great diversity of opinions on a local infrastructure tax issue, within our ASCE Branch.

    ------------------------------
    Thomas Caffery P.E., M.ASCE
    Transportation Engineer (Retired)
    Orlando FL
    ------------------------------



  • 133.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 07-13-2022 11:23 AM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 07-13-2022 11:22 AM

    I am grateful to ASCE for allowing us to have this discussion on these topics, especially when some of us don't completely agree with ASCE's point of view regarding climate change.  If this thread is any indication of the overall number of ASCE members who disagree with ASCE's stance on man-made climate change, suffice it to say that there is a percentage who are deniers, or in other words, outside the realm of science, there is no overwhelming consensus.

    For those of you who have not made up your minds on this topic, in my opinion, there are several key questions to consider:

    1. Is the IPCC a credible, reliable, and truthful source?
    2. Is it true that 97% of all scientists believe in man-made climate change?
    3. Do the man-made climate change believers, such as the IPCC, allow for debate from the opposing side?
    4. Is NASA immune to joining this huge climate change effort by adjusting data?
    5. Is the federal government truly concerned with our planet, or is this another fearmongering effort for them to gain more power and make more money?
    6. If the oceans truly are rising, then we should plan for it, but why blame it on the use of fossil fuels?
    7. Why was "Global Warming" changed to "Climate Change"?
    8. The current administration has been using the climate change agenda as the reason to stop oil drilling in the U.S., thus causing huge increases in gas prices. Are you happy with this?
    9. Shouldn't we make sure that climate change truly is caused by humans, before going ahead with economy destroying policies to combat climate change?


    ------------------------------
    Kirk Uchytil
    Structural Engineer
    ------------------------------



  • 134.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 07-13-2022 09:18 PM
    Here is a simple question.

    What is there no discussion regarding the use of Nuclear Power generation. It is proven clean, readily available and creates more benefit and minimizes global warming.

    Again. A simple question

    ------------------------------
    Vito Rotondi, (Retired)
    Arch. S.E. P.E. Life M ASCE
    Westmont Illinois
    ------------------------------



  • 135.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 07-17-2022 11:15 AM
    Vito: I have the same question. Shall we start a new thread on that subject?
    Bill

    ------------------------------
    William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., D.CE, D.NE, F.ASCE
    ENGINEER
    Columbus MS
    ------------------------------



  • 136.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 07-18-2022 10:03 AM
    Yes. It is a valid topic to have meaningful discussion. I began my career as a structural engineer in 1972. I worked on nuclear power plants until 1979. Three Mile Island event occurred.  The political landscape immediately changed and as a young engineer I moved on too much more diverse projects. Uneducated political decisions are crippling to a country. Look at Germany today. They shut down their nuclear plants for the wrong reasons. Now they are in a pickle. As scientists and engineers, we must be unbiased. If we do not, chaos ensues.
    So, William please begin a new thread. It will be beneficial for the younger people in our organization to understand one of the most effective solutions to power generation. The discussions should contain the past, present and the future including fusion energy.

    ------------------------------
    Vito Rotondi, (Retired)
    Arch. S.E. P.E. Life M ASCE
    Westmont Illinois
    ------------------------------



  • 137.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 07-14-2022 09:31 AM

    Kirk: Your questions (in italics) and my answers are given below. I welcome corrections and differing perspectives.

    Is the IPCC a credible, reliable, and truthful source? Yes. The six IPCC reports were prepared by top scientists in each field, based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and reviewed by independent experts before publication. In my area of knowledge and practice, I find their analyses of sea level rise to be sound and well supported by evidence.

    Is it true that 97% of all scientists believe in man-made climate change? First, a correction. The scientific consensus is that human activity has contributed to climate change in addition to natural cycles and trends, it has not caused all observed changes.

    The 97% number came from a survey of published papers rather than a poll of all scientists. I don't know what the precise number is. I know this: all of the related-area scientists that I worked with in industry, government, and academia who expressed an opinion said that human activity is responsible for the acceleration of global warming beyond ongoing natural processes.

    Do the man-made climate change believers, such as the IPCC, allow for debate from the opposing side? Scientific debate is welcomed and even noted in the IPCC reports; however, rigorous scientific debate should take place in the peer-reviewed literature. That's where data and analyses are published for careful scrutiny, debate, and correction as needed. Online videos and discussions, such as this one, do not substitute for the scientific literature.

    Is NASA immune to joining this huge climate change effort by adjusting data? All data-gathering organizations perform quality control on their products, including adjustments as needed for changes in equipment and location. I have experienced many such adjustments in water resources data for the past 50 years and the agencies have been transparent and honest in those adjustments. NASA has a web page addressing their temperature data adjustments for those who are interested (https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/3071/the-raw-truth-on-global-temperature-records/).

    Is the federal government truly concerned with our planet, or is this another fearmongering effort for them to gain more power and make more money? Questioning motives is a diversion from a fact- and logic-based discussion and leads to questioning the motives of the previous administration, the one before that, and so on. It's partisan bickering rather than a discussion.

    If the oceans truly are rising, then we should plan for it, but why blame it on the use of fossil fuels? You are correct that we should plan for rising sea levels in most USA locations. Many local, state, and national organizations, both governmental and private, are doing so – actively planning and designing for higher sea levels. Estimating how fast sea levels will rise requires estimates of future global and regional temperature increases. Those increases depend in part on present and future greenhouse gas emissions, which is where uncertainty about public policy on fossil fuels affects our planning. The Corps and NOAA recommend using three possible sea level change scenarios in the planning process to identify risks and address the risks as necessary.

    Why was "Global Warming" changed to "Climate Change"? There has been no change. They are two different but related processes. More greenhouse gasses lead to global warming. Warmer temperatures cause changes to climate (statistical descriptions of precipitation, wind, etc.).

    The current administration has been using the climate change agenda as the reason to stop oil drilling in the U.S., thus causing huge increases in gas prices. Are you happy with this? Oil drilling has not stopped in the USA. Drilling and pumping continue. Some, but not all, oil lease auctions for future drilling have been cancelled. Petroleum, and thus gasoline, prices increased worldwide as a result of worldwide supply and demand, not because of events in the USA. Gasoline prices have fallen the last week or so as a result of those market forces.

    Shouldn't we make sure that climate change truly is caused by humans, before going ahead with economy destroying policies to combat climate change? The best science available tells us that: 

    • "Human influence on the climate system is now an established fact" IPCC 2021
    • "It is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth's climate." U.S. National Academies of Science and Engineering 2020

    Similar conclusions have been expressed worldwide by research institutions and government agencies.

    I recall complaints from the 1970s onward that environmental protection laws were going to bring economic ruin. They didn't. The country prospered with new technologies and our air and water quality improved substantially. The National Academy of Sciences is producing a report on "no regrets" climate policies that address climate goals along with social and economic goals. We must also note the increasing cost of climate-related disasters, so doing nothing harms our economy. What to do and how much we should spend is a valid public debate.



    ------------------------------
    William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., D.CE, D.NE, F.ASCE
    ENGINEER
    Columbus MS
    ------------------------------



  • 138.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 07-16-2022 10:18 AM

    Bill, these are very thorough and well thought-out responses. I have a quick question on your response to question # 2". . . the scientific consensus is that human activity has contributed to climate change in addition to natural cycles and trends, it has not caused all observed changes."

    • Is there a separation between human-made causes and those caused by natural cycles and trends? The answer to this will help public to do away with their confusion – by knowing how much is caused by humans on top of natural causes. I have not seen such a separation in IPCC documents (or perhaps I have missed it).

    • If such a separation is not there, does IPPC have plans to do some research to look into it?

    Thanks again.

    -----

    Dr. Dilip K Barua, PhD

    Website

    Google Scholar




  • 139.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 07-17-2022 10:45 AM
    Dilip: That's an excellent question, but I don't have a simple answer at hand. The IPCC reports express such comparisons in terms of Effective Radiative Forcing, which I am sure to mangle if I even tried to explain. Perhaps someone else in this thread can do a better job 
    Greenhouse gasses are easier for me. One simple comparison I recall is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Data indicates that it has fluctuated between about 150 and 300 ppm over the past 800,000 years. In the industrial age it has risen to about 400 ppm. Is it reasonable to say that the human-induced increase is on the order of 30%+ so far? IPCC's best case scenario has it falling slightly and their worst case scenario has it increasing to about 2000 ppm.
    I'm hoping someone can provide a better answer.

    ------------------------------
    William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., D.CE, D.NE, F.ASCE
    ENGINEER
    Columbus MS
    ------------------------------



  • 140.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 07-14-2022 09:33 AM

    We (each of us, ASCE, America, and humanity) have our work cut out for us to devise an effective, minimally corrupt, global political approach to the evolving "working hypotheses" regarding significant climate/RSLR change impacts associated with global-scale explosion in population and fossil-fuel-use.  As a start maybe most of us can agree on these 12 points?  
    1) The IPCC is likely to be as credible and truthful as any global scientific organization--e.g., WHO.  2) The vast majority of climate scientists (like ASCE members) are sincere and diligent about keeping a reasonably open mind when it comes to "working hypotheses."  3) Managers, funding-seekers, and PR folks are occupationally prone to drinking and serving "the Kool-Aid;" but that does NOT mean that the Kool-Ais is always spiked.  4) There are well-defined recent AND reasonably-well indicated near-term (10-yr) trends in climate and RSLR change. 5)  Factors associated with these trend--plus further indications of acceleration in the trends--reasonably support a "working hypothesis" of significant change over the longer-term--i.e., coming decades.  6) The most important factor is the massive last-100-years of accelerating global-scale fossil-fuel consumption and the "baked-in" (pun intended) further acceleration due to ongoing global-scale explosion in population and industrialization.  7) There is huge uncertainty when it comes to the magnitude of 30-yr+ climate and RSLR change predictions--but just the low-side estimates have crucial implications for both the "built" and "natural" environment--and thus for the civil engineering profession.  8) Continued investigation of the accelerating trends and refining the "working hypotheses" are extremely important. 8)  Prioritizing collective action/spending/regulation etc. to address climate & RSLR trend impacts (per the best "working hypotheses") is a "political question."  9) Responsible political actions may have broad benefits, but we can't pretend there aren't often major wealth-shifting and life-style issues among individuals, occupations, enterprises, whole communities, and in this case nations. 9)  A massive global-scale problem requires a coordinated massive global-scale political approach (e.g., global action to address role of refrigerants on ozone depletion).  10) We have good reason to be suspect of a massive global-scale political effort to address climate/RSLR trends--there are many "leaders" who would use this effort as an opportunity to address numerous other economic and cultural agendas.  11)  A concentration of political power combined with the susceptibility of political agendas to conflation is ALWAYS corrupting.  12) An effective politics with minimal corruption requires leaders (and opinion-shapers) who have respect for--as well as broad public support for--a) the rule of law and limited government; b) placing law-making authority in a reasonably representative body with separate bodies having defined executive and judicial powers; and d) sovereign governments at multiple levels (federalism). 
    Bob Jacobsen, PE





    ------------------------------
    Robert Jacobsen P.E., M.ASCE
    President
    Baton Rouge LA
    ------------------------------



  • 141.  RE: Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?

    Posted 08-26-2022 04:31 PM
    Q. "Should ASCE Maintain a More Neutral Political Tone?"

    A. "It Depends."

    • Despite the facts, A political stand-off has been in place by those who control the education courses for our engineering students,
    "The Great News:"  Within each separate discipline, CE, ME, EE, etc., the university students level of their specialty is right-on!

    "The Real-Professional Working-World News: " For about some 70% or more of various types of project failures, if one uses
    "Forensic Management"
    and works backwards asking "WHY" at least 5 times, we discover the root causes to be right in the boardroom of those who model the sociocultural aspects of the workplace.

    The remedy is as simple and complex a solution as to educate our engineers "How to play nice together," and the C-Suites, Executives and Sr. MGrs. to 
    model the behaviors . . .no memos, rules, or posters ...of what our culture is to be, i.e., "Just watch me and you'll learn.

    And "YES," this is a major political roadblock right within our own backyards.

    Cheers,
    Bill

    ------------------------------
    William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., P.E., CMQ/OE, F.ASCE
    Buffalo, N.Y.

    "It is never too late to be what you might have been." -- George Eliot 1819 - 1880
    ------------------------------